To link to the entire object, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed the entire object, paste this HTML in websiteTo link to this page, paste this link in email, IM or documentTo embed this page, paste this HTML in website

AIR INSTALLATION
COMPATIBLE USE ZONE
STUDY
Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma
December 2006
AIR INSTALLATION
COMPATIBLE USE ZONE STUDY
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE,
OKLAHOMA
DECEMBER 2006
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... vi
SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Process, Procedure, and Noise Metrics .................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Computerized Noise Exposure Models .................................................................... 1-2
SECTION 2 INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Description of Tinker Air Force Base ...................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Mission ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Economic Impact......................................................................................................2-1
2.3.1 Local Economic Characteristics ...................................................................... 2-1
2.3.2 Base Impact .....................................................................................................2-2
SECTION 3 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS........................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Aircraft Operations...................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Runway and Flight Track Utilization ....................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Aircraft Maintenance Runup Operations.................................................................. 3-3
3.5 Aircraft Flight Profiles ............................................................................................. 3-3
3.6 Climatological Data..................................................................................................3-3
SECTION 4 EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS................................................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Runway Airspace Imaginary Surfaces ..................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Explanation of Terms ......................................................................................4-1
4.2.2 Runway Airspace Imaginary Surfaces ............................................................ 4-1
4.3 Restricted and/or Prohibited Land Uses ................................................................... 4-5
4.4 Noise Exposure.........................................................................................................4-5
4.5 Comparison with 1998 AICUZ Study...................................................................... 4-6
4.6 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones ............................................................ 4-13
4.6.1 Basis for Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones .................................... 4-13
4.6.2 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones ................................................... 4-13
4.6.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines .............................................................. 4-17
4.6.3.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................4-17
4.6.3.2 Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines..................................................... 4-17
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study iii
4.7 Participation in the Planning Process ..................................................................... 4-23
SECTION 5 LAND USE ANALYSIS.................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................... 5-2
5.3 Current Zoning .........................................................................................................5-5
5.4 Future Land Use ....................................................................................................... 5-9
5.5 Incompatible Land Uses ......................................................................................... 5-10
5.5.1 Runways 17 and 35 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones................... 5-10
5.5.1.1 Runway 17 Clear Zone (North of the Airfield) .................................... 5-10
5.5.1.2 Runway 17 Accident Potential Zone I (North of the Airfield)............. 5-10
5.5.1.3 Runway 17 Accident Potential Zone II (North of the Airfield) ........... 5-15
5.5.1.4 Runway 35 Clear Zone (South of the Airfield) .................................... 5-15
5.5.1.5 Runway 35 Accident Potential Zone I (South of the Airfield)............. 5-15
5.5.1.6 Runway 35 Accident Potential Zone II (South of the Airfield) ........... 5-15
5.5.2 Runways 12 and 30 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones................... 5-15
5.5.2.1 Runway 12 Clear Zone (Northwest of the Airfield)............................. 5-15
5.5.2.2 Runway 12 Accident Potential Zone I (Northwest of the Airfield) ..... 5-15
5.5.2.3 Runway 12 Accident Potential Zone II (Northwest of the Airfield) .... 5-16
5.5.2.4 Runway 30 Clear Zone (Southeast of the Airfield).............................. 5-16
5.5.2.5 Runway 30 Accident Potential Zone I (Southeast of the Airfield) ...... 5-16
5.5.2.6 Runway 30 Accident Potential Zone II (Southeast of the Airfield) ..... 5-16
5.6 Noise Zones............................................................................................................ 5-16
5.7 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study Updates ........................................... 5-16
SECTION 6 IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Air Force Responsibilities ........................................................................................ 6-1
6.3 Local Community Responsibilities .......................................................................... 6-2
APPENDICES
Appendix A The AICUZ Concept, Program, Methodology, and Policies
Appendix B Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
Appendix C Noise and Noise Level Reduction Guidelines
Appendix D 1983 AICUZ Study Noise Contours
Appendix E Headquarters Air Force Material Command Letter
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Tinker AFB Location Map ................................................................................. 2-5
Figure 3.1 Arrival Flight Tracks .......................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3.2 Departure Flight Tracks...................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.3 Closed Pattern Flight Tracks .............................................................................. 3-9
Figure 4.1 Class B Air Force Runway Airspace Imaginary Surfaces.................................. 4-3
Figure 4.2 Average Busy-Day Noise Contours for 2006..................................................... 4-7
Figure 4.3 1998 AICUZ Study Noise Contours................................................................... 4-9
Figure 4.4 Comparison of 2006 and 1998 AICUZ Study Noise Contours........................ 4-11
Figure 4.5 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones ...................................................... 4-15
Figure 5.1 Generalized Existing Land Use .......................................................................... 5-3
Figure 5.2 Generalized Zoning ............................................................................................ 5-7
Figure 5.3 Generalized Future Land Use........................................................................... 5-11
Figure 5.4 Incompatible Land Uses ................................................................................... 5-13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Historic and Projected Population ...................................................................... 2-2
Table 2.2 Oklahoma City MSA Employment Estimates by Industry Group, 2002 ........... 2-2
Table 2.3 Personnel by Classification ................................................................................ 2-3
Table 2.4 Annual Payroll.................................................................................................... 2-3
Table 3.1 Average Busy-Day Aircraft Operations for 2006 .............................................. 3-2
Table 4.1 Area and Population within DNL 65 dB and Greater Noise Exposure Area
(Off-Installation)................................................................................................. 4-6
Table 4.2 Total Acres within the 2006 and 1998 AICUZ Study Noise Zones................... 4-6
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ................................................................. 4-18
Table 5.1 Generalized Existing Land Use Within DNL 65 dB and Greater Noise Exposure
Area (Off Installation) ........................................................................................ 5-5
Table 5.2 Generalized Existing Land Use within the Tinker AFB Clear Zones and
Accident Potential Zones (Off-Installation) ....................................................... 5-5
Table 5.3 Generalized Zoning within DNL 65 dB and Greater Noise Exposure Area
(Off-Installation outside CZs and APZs) ........................................................... 5-6
Table 5.4 Generalized Zoning within the Tinker AFB Clear Zones and Accident Potential
Zones (Off-Installation)...................................................................................... 5-9
Table 5.5 Incompatible Land Use for Runways 17/35 and 12/30 at Tinker AFB............ 5-10
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study v
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACOG Association of Central Oklahoma Governments
AFB Air Force Base
AFI Air Force Instruction
AGL above ground level
AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
APZ Accident Potential Zone
CZ Clear Zone
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted sound level measured in decibels
DNL Day-Night Average A-Weighted Sound Level
DoD Department of Defense
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
INM Integrated Noise Model
LZ landing zone
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSL mean sea level
NLR Noise Level Reduction
OC-ALC Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
SLUCM Standard Land Use Coding Manual
the Base Tinker Air Force Base
UFC Unified Facilities Criteria
US United States
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VFR visual flight rules
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study vii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 1-1
SECTION 1
PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This study is an update of the 1998 Tinker Air Force Base (AFB), Oklahoma Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study. The update presents and documents
changes to the AICUZ amendment for the period 1998-2006 and is based on the January 2006
aircraft operations condition. This AICUZ Study reaffirms Air Force policy of assisting local,
regional, state, and federal officials in the areas surrounding Tinker AFB by promoting
compatible development within the AICUZ area of influence; and protecting Air Force
operational capability from the effects of land use that are incompatible with aircraft
operations. Specifically, the report documents changes in aircraft operations since the last
study and provides noise contours and compatible use guidelines for land areas surrounding
the installation based on the January 2006 operations. This information is provided to assist
local communities and to serve as a tool for future planning and zoning activities. Changes
that occurred since the 1998 Tinker AFB AICUZ Study include:
• An increase in the number of operations by based aircraft;
• The addition of 4 based KC-135 aircraft;
• An increase in the number of transient aircraft operations at Tinker AFB;
• Addition, elimination, and modification of aircraft flight tracks to correspond to
flying operations changes; and
• Technical improvements to the NOISEMAP computer modeling program.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the long-standing AICUZ program is to promote compatible land
development in areas subject to aircraft noise and accident potential. The Air Force provides
the AICUZ Study to all local communities to assist them in preparing local land use plans. As
the nearby cities of Oklahoma City, Midwest City, Del City, Choctaw, Nicoma Park, and
Spencer and Oklahoma and Cleveland counties prepare and modify land use development
plans, recommendations from this updated AICUZ Study should be included in the planning
process to prevent incompatible land use that could compromise the ability of Tinker AFB to
fulfill its mission. Accident potential and aircraft noise should be major considerations in the
planning process.
Air Force AICUZ guidelines reflect land use recommendations for the Clear Zones
(CZ), Accident Potential Zones (APZ) I and II, and four noise zones exposed to noise levels at
or above 65 decibels (dB) Day-Night Average A-Weighted Sound Level (DNL). These
guidelines were established on the basis of studies prepared and sponsored by several federal
agencies, including the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), United States Air Force, and state and
local agencies. The guidelines recommend land uses that are compatible with airfield
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 1-2
operations while allowing maximum beneficial use of adjacent properties. The Air Force has
no desire to recommend land use regulations that render property economically useless. It
does, however, have an obligation to the inhabitants of the Tinker AFB area of influence and
the citizens of the United States to point out ways to protect the public investment in the
installation and the people living in areas adjacent to the installation. The AICUZ area of
influence includes the area within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise exposure area and the
area within the CZs and APZs.
1.3 PROCESS, PROCEDURE, AND NOISE METRICS
Preparation and presentation of this update to Tinker AFB’s AICUZ Study is part of the
continuing Air Force participation in the local planning process. Guidance for the Air Force
AICUZ program is contained in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7063, Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone Program, which implements DoD Instruction 4165.57, Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones.
As local communities prepare land use plans and zoning ordinances, the Air Force
recognizes it has the responsibility to provide input on its activities relating to the community.
This study is presented in the spirit of mutual cooperation and assistance by Tinker AFB to
aid in the land use planning process around the Base.
The AICUZ program uses the latest technology to define noise levels in areas near Air
Force installations with a flying mission. Aircraft operational data used in this study were
collected at Tinker AFB in April 2005. The Air Force reviewed and validated the data
through a communicative process that was finalized in January 2006. Aircraft flight data
were obtained to derive average daily operations by runway and type of aircraft. Analysis of
Tinker AFB’s flying operations included the types of aircraft, flight patterns utilized,
variations in altitude, power settings, number of operations, and hours of operations. These
data were supplemented by flight track information (where we fly), flight profile information
(how we fly), and ground runup information. After verification for accuracy, the data were
input into the NOISEMAP Version 7.296 computer program to produce DNL noise contours.
The noise contours for Tinker AFB were plotted on an area map and overlaid with the CZ and
APZ areas for the airfield.
1.4 COMPUTERIZED NOISE EXPOSURE MODELS
The Air Force adopted the NOISEMAP computer program to describe noise impacts
created by aircraft operations. NOISEMAP is one of two USEPA-approved computer
programs; the other is the Integrated Noise Model (INM) used by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for noise analysis at civil airports. The NOISEMAP and INM
programs are similar; however, INM does not contain noise data for all military aircraft.
NOISEMAP is a suite of computer programs and components developed by the Air
Force to predict noise exposure in the vicinity of an airfield due to aircraft flight,
maintenance, and ground run-up operations. The components of NOISEMAP are:
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 1-3
• BASEOPS is the input module for NOISEMAP and is used to enter detailed aircraft
flight track and profile and ground maintenance operational data.
• NOISEFILE is a comprehensive database of measured military and civil aircraft
noise data. Aircraft operational information is matched with the noise measurements
in the NOISEFILE after the detailed aircraft flight and ground maintenance
operational data has been entered into BASEOPS.
• NMAP is the computational module in NOISEMAP. NMAP takes BASEOPS input
and uses the NOISEFILE database to calculate the noise levels caused by aircraft
events at specified grid points in the airbase vicinity. The output of NMAP is a
series of georeferenced data points, specific grid point locations, and corresponding
noise levels.
• NMPLOT is the program for viewing and editing the sets of georeferenced data
points. NMPLOT plots the NMAP output in a noise contour grid that can be
exported as files that can be used in mapping programs for analyzing the noise
impacts.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 1-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-1
SECTION 2
INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
Tinker AFB lies entirely within the boundaries of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. The
main portion of Tinker AFB is located within the incorporated city limits of Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma (see Figure 2.1). Centered ten miles southeast of downtown, Tinker AFB is
bordered to the north by Interstate 40 and 29th Street, to the east by Douglas Boulevard, to the
south along 74th Street, and to the west by Sooner Road. Incorporated areas immediately
surrounding the Base include Midwest City to the north and Del City to the northwest.
Tinker AFB encompasses 5,033 acres of federal land with 716 buildings totaling
15.9 million square feet. The Base has a two-runway airfield capable of supporting the
missions of Tinker AFB and the operations at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
(OC-ALC).
2.2 MISSION
Tinker AFB is home to the OC-ALC, 72d Air Base Wing, the 552d Air Control Wing,
the United States Navy (CSCW-1), and the 507th Air Refueling Wing. The last three units
are respectively assigned the E-3, E-6B, and KC-135 aircraft.
The OC-ALC is one of three depot level maintenance facilities in the Air Force Materiel
Command. The OC-ALC is responsible for the depot maintenance of the B-1B, E-3, B-52,
C/KC-135, E-6B, and 25 other Contractor Logistics Support aircraft. The 10th Flight Test
Squadron conducts test flights on B-1B, E-3, B-52, and C/KC-135 aircraft associated with
depot maintenance at the OC-ALC. The OC-ALC is only Air Force depot responsible for
system management and logistics support of the B-2 aircraft and Air Force One. The center
also oversees 23,000 aircraft engines, and a multitude of missile systems for the Department
of Defense.
2.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Economic Impact Region for Tinker AFB is the geographic area subject to
significant Base-generated economic impacts, and is defined as the Oklahoma City
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In 2003, the Office of Management and Budget
reorganized the Oklahoma City MSA by adding Grady and Lincoln Counties and removing
Pottawatomie County from the MSA. The current Oklahoma City MSA is comprised of
Canadian, Grady, Lincoln, Logan, and Oklahoma Counties.
2.3.1 Local Economic Characteristics
As shown in Table 2.1, the Oklahoma City MSA had a population of over 1.08 million
in 2000, making it the 49th largest MSA in the country. The Oklahoma City MSA is
expected to grow in population to over 1.17 million by 2010. This MSA population reflects
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-2
an 11 percent growth over a ten-year period. Oklahoma City grew by 12 percent and Midwest
City recorded a population growth of three percent from 1990 to 2000. Del City experienced
a population decline of less then one percent during the 1990s. Table 2.1 displays the
population for Oklahoma County and the municipalities of Oklahoma City, Midwest City, and
Del City, all of which fall within the Oklahoma City MSA.
Table 2.1 Historic and Projected Population
Area 1990 2000 2004 estimate 2010 projection
Oklahoma City 444,719 506,132 528,042 539,870
Midwest City 52,267 54,0 54,8 57,440
Del City 23,928 22,1 22,0 23,5
Oklahoma County 599,611 660,44 680,81 701,40
Oklahoma City MSA -- 1,083,346 1,171,700
Source: US Census Bureau, 2002, Oklahoma State Data Center, 2002
In 2002, employment within the Oklahoma City MSA was estimated to be over
330,000 persons, with an estimated unemployment rate of 3.7 percent. Trade and health and
social services employ the largest percentage of workers, with over 120,000 employees
(36 percent of total). Table 2.2 presents the Oklahoma City MSA employment by industry
group.
Table 2.2 Oklahoma City MSA Employment Estimates by Industry Group, 2002
Industry Employees
Utilities 2,804
Manufacturing 41,197
Trade 58,681
Transportation and warehousing 14,296
Information 13,919
Finance and insurance 23,119
Real estate, rental, and leasing 8,396
Administrative, waste management, and remediation service 42,758
Health care and social assistance 62,034
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 5,715
Accommodation and food services 43,709
Other services 13,490
Total 330,118
Source: US Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census
2.3.2 Base Impact
Tinker AFB is the largest single-site employer in the state of Oklahoma. As shown in
Table 2.3, Tinker AFB directly employs over 25,000 personnel. The annual payroll of the
installation is over $1 billion (Table 2.4). As a result of payroll expenditures, annual
expenses, and the estimated value of indirect jobs in the local area, Tinker AFB has an
estimated total economic impact of nearly $2.86 billion on the local MSA and nearly
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-3
$3.03 billion statewide. The majority of this economic impact was due to the payroll and
contracts provided by the installation.
Table 2.3 Personnel by Classification
Classification Total
Active Duty Military 9,410
Total Military 9,410
Civilian Employees 16,270
Military Dependents 3,943
Total Civilian Personnel 20,213
Grand Total 29,623
Source: Tinker AFB Economic Impact Report FY04, Tinker AFB General Plan
Table 2.4 Annual Payroll
Category MSA ($) Statewide ($)
Total Annual Payroll 1,085,300,000 1,141,300,000
Contracts and Procurement 722,600,000 723,300,000
Material, Equipment and Supplies 152,400,000 152,700,000
Construction 21,400,000 35,600,000
Other 34,300,000 34,700,000
Estimated Value of Indirect Jobs 842,000,000 939,000,000
Total 2,858,000,000 3,026,600,000
Source: Tinker AFB Economic Impact Report FY04
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
270
40
240
35 77
35
77
240 62
62
40 270
62
35
35
44
77
77
235
270
44
Tinker
AFB
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Del City
Midwest City
Stanley
Draper
Lake
Lake
Aluma
Nicoma Park
Forest
Park
Moore
Norman
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Jones
Harrah
The
Village
Nichols
Hills
3
Miles
0
Key Map
Figure 2.1
Location Map
Tinker AFB Tinker AFB - Oklahoma
LEGEND
Runway
Tinker AFB
County Line
Municipal Boundary
Stream/River
Rail Road
Roadway
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
2-5
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-6
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-1
SECTION 3
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
To describe the relationship between aircraft operations and land use at and around the
airfield, it is necessary to fully evaluate the exact nature of flying activities. The January
2006 inventory of Tinker AFB aircraft operations included where aircraft fly, how high they
fly, how many times they fly over a given area, and the time of day they operate.
Section 3.2 discusses aircraft operations at Tinker AFB. Section 3.3 discusses runway
and flight track utilization for all operations by aircraft type. Section 3.4 describes aircraft
maintenance activity, Section 3.5 discusses aircraft flight profiles, and Section 3.6 presents
climatological data.
3.2 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Over 46,000 annual aircraft operations occur at Tinker AFB based on aircraft operations
data validated in January 2006. An aircraft operation is defined as one takeoff/departure, one
approach/landing, or half a closed pattern. A closed pattern consists of two portions, a
takeoff/departure and an approach/landing, i.e., two operations. A sortie is a single military
aircraft flight from the initial takeoff through the termination landing. The minimum number
of aircraft operations for one sortie is two operations, one takeoff (departure) and one landing
(approach).
Table 3.1 summarizes the projected average busy-day aircraft operations for Tinker
AFB based on information provided by Base staff, flying organization, and air traffic control
personnel. Aircraft types operating at the Base consist primarily of military aircraft. In
addition to the Tinker AFB based and depot maintenance aircraft, numerous types of transient
military and civil air carrier aircraft conduct operations at the Base. The table reflects a total
of about 272 average busy-day aircraft operations based on collected operations data. About
7 percent of the total daily operations occur at night (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.).
Although the number of military and civil aircraft operations at an installation usually
varies from day to day, NOISEMAP requires input of the specific numbers of daily flight and
aircraft maintenance engine runup operations. The Air Force does not follow the FAA’s use
of the “average annual day” in which annual operations are averaged over an entire 365-day
year. Neither does the Air Force use the “worst-case day” since it typically does not represent
the typical noise exposure. Instead, the Air Force uses the “average busy-day” concept in
which annual operations for an aircraft type are averaged over the number of flying days per
year by that aircraft type. Non-flying days (e.g., weekends or holidays) are not used in
computing the “average busy-day” operations. Flying activity at Tinker AFB for based and
depot maintenance aircraft occurs 260 days per year. Transient aircraft operations are based
on 365 days per year.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-2
Table 3.1 Average Busy-Day Aircraft Operations for 2006
Category/
Aircraft Type
Daily Arrival/
Departure
Operations
Daily Closed
Pattern
Operations
Total Daily
Operations
Tinker AFB Aircraft
E-3 14.80 49.17 63.97
KC-135 9.25 37.41 46.66
B-737 2.00 4.00 6.00
E-6 10.00 60.80 70.80
Subtotal 36.05 151.38 187.43
Depot Maintenance Aircraft
C/KC-135 0.67 2.68 3.35
E-3 0.12 0.95 1.07
B-52 0.42 0.77 1.19
B-1 0.25 0.15 .040
Subtotal 1.46 4.55 6.01
Transient Aircraft
22 types 27.92 50.92 78.84
Total 65.43 206.85 272.28
Note: An operation is one takeoff/departure or one arrival/landing. A closed pattern
consists of two operations, one takeoff and one landing.
3.3 RUNWAY AND FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION
Runway 17/35 is oriented 174°–354°magnetic and Runway 12/30 is oriented 124°–
304°magnetic. The north-south runway (Runway 17/35) is 200 feet wide and 11,100 feet
long. The crosswind runway (Runway 12/30) is 200 feet wide and 10,000 feet long. The
overruns at the ends of each runway are 1,000 feet long and 200 feet wide. The airfield
elevation is 1,291 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
Other airports and military airfields within the area surrounding the base influence
Tinker AFB aircraft arrival and departure flight tracks. The Expressway Airport is 9 miles
north; Downtown Airport is 7 miles west-northwest; the University of Oklahoma/Westheimer
Airport is 11 miles south-southwest; Will Rogers World Airport is 10 miles west-southwest;
and Wiley Post Airport is 14 miles northwest.
Aircraft operating at Tinker AFB use the following flight patterns:
• Departures in all directions;
• Arrivals from all directions;
• Radar closed patterns to the east of the airfield; and
• Overhead and rectangular closed patterns for all aircraft are flown at 1,700 feet
above ground level (AGL).
Flight patterns specific to Tinker AFB result from several considerations, including:
• Takeoff patterns routed to avoid noise-sensitive areas as much as possible;
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-3
• Arrivals and departures routed to avoid restricted airspace;
• Criteria governing the speed, rate of climb, and turning radius for each type of
aircraft;
• Efforts to control and schedule missions to keep noise levels low, especially at night;
and
• Coordination with the FAA to minimize conflict with civil aircraft operations.
Planning for the areas surrounding an airfield considers three primary aircraft
operational/land-use determinants: (1) aircraft accident potential to land users; (2) aircraft
noise; and (3) hazards to operations from land uses (e.g., height of structures). Each of these
concerns is addressed in conjunction with mission requirements and safe aircraft operations to
determine the optimum flight track for each aircraft type. The flight tracks depicted in
Figures 3.1 through 3.3 are the result of such planning and depict the representative flight
tracks used for noise modeling. Runway use is: Runway 12—4 percent: Runway 17—
54 percent; Runway 30—3 percent; and Runway 35—39 percent.
3.4 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE RUNUP OPERATIONS
To the maximum extent possible, aircraft maintenance engine runup locations have
been established in areas to minimize noise for people in the surrounding communities, as
well as for those on base. Aircraft maintenance engine runup operations are accomplished by
based flying units and their associated maintenance functions.
Average busy-day aircraft maintenance runup operations were calculated similarly to
flight operations described in Section 3.1. Weekly, monthly, or annual estimates of runups
provided by Tinker AFB aircraft maintenance personnel were divided by the typical number
of days runups were performed over the respective period. Approximately 9 percent of
aircraft maintenance runup operations at Tinker AFB occur during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.).
3.5 AIRCRAFT FLIGHT PROFILES
For purposes of this AICUZ Study, aircraft “flight profiles” denote the aircraft power
settings, altitudes above runway level, and airspeeds along each flight track. Aircraft flight
profiles for E-3, KC-135R, E-6, B-737, C/KC-135, B-52, and B-1 aircraft were obtained from
Tinker AFB personnel. Generic flight profiles from the BASEOPS database were used to
model operations for the other military aircraft types. Noise data from the NOISEFILE
database were used to model operations for all aircraft types.
3.6 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
Weather conditions, measured by temperature and relative humidity, are an important
factor in the propagation of noise. Temperature and relative humidity affect sound
absorption. The average temperature and humidity for each month of the year are input into
BASEOPS, which then calculates the sound absorption coefficient for each month. Ranking
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-4
the twelve monthly sound absorption coefficients from smallest to largest, BASEOPS chooses
the sixth smallest sound absorption coefficient to represent the typical weather conditions at
the installation. The month with the sixth smallest sound absorption coefficient for Tinker
AFB is the month with the average monthly temperature of 63 degrees Fahrenheit and
61 percent relative humidity.
3-5
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-6
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17
35
30
12
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Moore Oklahoma City
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
Lake
Aluma
Forest
Park
N. Midwest Blvd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
S. Eastern Ave.
S. Bryant Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
S.E. 149th St.
S.E. 164th St.
S. Choctaw Rd.
N.E. 36th St.
N.E. 50th St.
N.E. 63rd St.
E. Wilshire Blvd.
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
270
62
240
240
40
35
77
62
35
270
40
Jones
Norman
S.E. 134th St.
11,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 3.2
Departure Flight Tracks Tinker AFB - Oklahoma
Runway
Roadway
Flight Track Tinker AFB
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
3-7
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17
35
30
12
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Moore Oklahoma City
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
Lake
Aluma
Forest
Park
N. Midwest Blvd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
S. Eastern Ave.
S. Bryant Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
S.E. 149th St.
S.E. 164th St.
S. Choctaw Rd.
N.E. 36th St.
N.E. 50th St.
N.E. 63rd St.
E. Wilshire Blvd.
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
270
62
240
240
40
35
77
62
35
270
40
Jones
Norman
S.E. 134th St.
11,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 3.3
Closed Pattern Tinker AFB - Oklahoma
Runway
Roadway
Flight Track Tinker AFB Flight Tracks
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
3-9
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-10
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-1
SECTION 4
EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section has two purposes. The first is to describe the imaginary surfaces associated
with obstructions to air navigation, noise exposure, CZs, and APZs. The second purpose is to
present applicable land-use compatibility guidelines and the Air Force’s participation in the
land-use planning process.
4.2 RUNWAY AIRSPACE IMAGINARY SURFACES
Obstructions to air navigation are considered to be:
• Natural objects or man-made structures that protrude above the planes or imaginary
surfaces, and/or;
• Man-made objects that extend more than 500 feet AGL at the site of the structure.
4.2.1 Explanation of Terms
The following elevation, runway length, and dimensional criteria apply:
• Controlling Elevation—Whenever surfaces or planes within the obstruction criteria
overlap, the controlling (or governing) elevation becomes that of the lowest surface
or plane.
• Runway Length—Tinker AFB has two runways. Runway 17/35 is 11,100 feet long
and Runway 12/30 is 10,000 feet long. Both runways are Class B runways that are
designed and built for sustained aircraft landings and take-offs:
• Established Airfield Elevation—The established elevation for the Tinker AFB
airfield is 1,291 feet above MSL.
• Dimensions—All dimensions are measured horizontally unless otherwise noted.
4.2.2 Runway Airspace Imaginary Surfaces
Runway airspace imaginary surfaces, in graphical form, are the result of the application
of obstruction height criteria to Tinker AFB. Imaginary surfaces are surfaces in space around
airfields in relation to runways. The surfaces are designed to define the obstacle-free airspace
at and around the airfield. Refer to Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-260-01, Airfield and
Heliport Planning and Design, for a more complete description of runway airspace imaginary
surfaces for Class B runways. Figure 4.1 depicts the runway airspace imaginary surfaces for
the Tinker AFB Class B runways. Air Force obstruction criteria in UFC 3-260-01 are based
on those contained in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting
Navigable Airspace, Subpart C. The following paragraphs contain definitions of the runway
airspace imaginary surfaces for Air Force class B runways:
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-2
• Primary Surface—An imaginary surface symmetrically centered on the runway,
extending 200 feet beyond each runway end that defines the limits of the obstruction
clearance requirements in the vicinity of the landing area. The width of the primary
surface is 2,000 feet, or 1,000 feet on each side of the runway centerline.
• Clear Zone Surface—An obstruction-free surface (except for features essential for
aircraft operations) on the ground symmetrically centered on the extended runway
centerline beginning at the end of the runway and extending outward 3,000 feet. The
CZ width is 3,000 feet (1,500 feet to either side of runway centerline).
• Accident Potential Zone Surfaces—APZ I begins at the outer end of the CZ and is
5,000 feet long and 3,000 feet wide. APZ II begins at the outer end of APZ I and is
7,000 feet long and 3,000 feet wide.
• Approach-Departure Clearance Surface—This imaginary surface is symmetrically
centered on the extended runway centerline, beginning as an inclined plane (glide
angle) 200 feet beyond each end of the primary surface, and extending for
50,000 feet. The slope of the approach-departure clearance surface is 50:1 until it
reaches an elevation of 500 feet above the established airfield elevation. It then
continues horizontally at this elevation to a point 50,000 feet from the starting point.
The width of this surface at the runway end is 2,000 feet, flaring uniformly to a
width of 16,000 feet at the end point.
• Inner Horizontal Surface—This imaginary surface is an oval plane at a height of
150 feet above the established airfield elevation. The inner boundary intersects with
the approach-departure clearance surface and the transitional surface. The outer
boundary is formed by scribing arcs with a radius 7,500 feet from the centerline of
each runway end and interconnecting these arcs with tangents.
• Conical Surface—This is an inclined imaginary surface extending outward and
upward from the outer periphery of the inner horizontal surface for a horizontal
distance of 7,000 feet to a height of 500 feet above the established airfield elevation.
The slope of the conical surface is 20:1. The conical surface connects the inner and
outer horizontal surfaces.
• Outer Horizontal Surface—This imaginary surface is located 500 feet above the
established airfield elevation and extends outward from the outer periphery of the
conical surface for a horizontal distance of 30,000 feet.
• Transitional Surface—This imaginary surface extends outward and upward at right
angles to the runway centerline and extended runway centerline at a slope of 7:1.
The transitional surface connects the primary and the approach-departure clearance
surfaces to the inner horizontal, the conical, and the outer horizontal surfaces.
4-3
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-5
4.3 RESTRICTED AND/OR PROHIBITED LAND USES
The land areas outlined by these criteria should be regulated to prevent uses that might
otherwise be hazardous to aircraft operations. The following uses should be restricted and/or
prohibited:
• Releases into the air of any substance that would impair visibility or otherwise
interfere with the operation of aircraft (e.g., steam, dust, or smoke);
• Light emissions, either direct or indirect (reflective), that would interfere with pilot
vision;
• Electrical emissions that would interfere with aircraft communications systems or
navigational equipment;
• Uses that would attract birds or waterfowl, including but not limited to, operation of
sanitary landfills, waste transfer facilities, maintenance of feeding stations, sand and
gravel dredging operations, storm water retention ponds, created wetland areas, or
the growing of certain vegetation; and
• Structures within 10 feet of aircraft approach-departure and/or transitional surfaces.
4.4 NOISE EXPOSURE
NOISEMAP Version 7.296 was used to calculate and plot the DNL noise contours
based on the average busy-day aircraft operations data collected in 2006 and described in
Sections 3.1 through 3.6. Figure 4.2 shows the DNL noise contours plotted in 5 dB
increments, ranging from DNL 65 dB to DNL at or above 80 dB
Different sounds have different frequency content. When describing sound and its
effect on a human population, A-weighted (dB) sound levels are typically used to account for
the response of the human ear. The term “A-weighted” refers to a filtering of the sound signal
to emphasize frequencies in the middle of the audible spectrum and to de-emphasize low and
high frequencies in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives sound. This
filtering network has been established by the American National Standards Institute. The
A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the
noisiness of different sounds and has been in use for many years as a measure of community
noise.
Table 4.1 shows the off-installation noise exposure within the DNL 65 dB and greater
noise exposure area for aircraft operations at Tinker AFB in terms of acreage and estimated
population. DNL is the measure of the total noise environment. DNL averages the sum of all
aircraft noise producing events over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dBA upward adjustment
added to the nighttime events (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). The population data used
in preparing this estimate was obtained from the United States Census Bureau 2000 census.
To estimate affected population, it was assumed that population was equally distributed
within a census tract area. Using this assumption, the total acreage and population in each
census tract surrounding Tinker AFB was collected and assessed. Using the noise contour
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-6
information, the number of acres of land in each noise zone (i.e., DNL 65-69 dB, 70-74 dB,
75-79 dB, and 80 dB and greater) was divided by the number of acres of land in each census
tract to determine what portion of the census tract was contained within each noise zone. The
population total in each block-group was then multiplied by this ratio to estimate population
exposed to aircraft noise at and above DNL 65 dB.
Table 4.1 Area and Population within DNL 65 dB and Greater
Noise Exposure Area (Off-Installation)
DNL Noise Zone Acres Population
65–69 3,710 5,794
70–74 1,239 3,067
75–79 549 1,247
80+ 75 0
Total 5,573 10,108
From Table 4.1, a total of 5,573 acres and 10,108 persons are expected to be in the
off-installation area within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise exposure area. The largest
affected population is anticipated to be within the DNL 65–69 dB noise zone. This area is
estimated to contain 3,710 acres in off-installation land area (57 percent of the total) and an
estimated population of 5,794 persons (57 percent of the total) based on the calculated
population densities for the area.
4.5 COMPARISON WITH 1998 AICUZ STUDY
Noise contours presented in this study differ in both shape and extent of coverage when
compared to the noise contours in the 1998 AICUZ Study. Figure 4.3 depicts the 1998
AICUZ Study contours and Figure 4.4 compares the 2006 and 1998 contours.
The overall exposure for this AICUZ Study is about 2,010 acres greater than the
1998 AICUZ Study. Table 4.2 lists the total noise exposure for the four noise zones in each
study. The increase in noise exposure since the 1998 AICUZ Study is attributed to the
increase in the number of aircraft operations.
Table 4.2 Total Acres within the 2006 and 1998 AICUZ Study Noise Zones
Acres
DNL Noise Zone 2006 Study 1998 Study
65–69 4,391 3,015
70–74 1,978 1,729
75–79 1,203 919
80+ 844 743
Total 8,416 6,406
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 1 19th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 4.2
Average Busy-Day Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
Noise Contours for 2006
DNL 80 dB Contour
DNL 75 dB Contour
DNL 70 dB Contour
DNL 65 dB Contour Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
4-7
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
65
65
70
70
75
75
75
80
80
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
30
12
S.E. 134th St.
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 4.3
1998 Noise Contours Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
DNL 80 dB Contour
DNL 75 dB Contour
DNL 70 dB Contour
DNL 65 dB Contour Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
4-9
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-10
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
65
65
70
70
75
75
75
80
80
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 1 19th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 4.4
Comparison of 2006 and Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
1998 AICUZ Study
Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
2006 DNL Noise Contour Noise Contours
1998 DNL Noise Contour
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
4-11
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-12
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-13
4.6 CLEAR ZONES AND ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
The purpose of this section is to describe the basis for CZs and APZs and apply the
zones to the Tinker AFB runways.
4.6.1 Basis for Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
Areas around airports are exposed to the possibility of aircraft accidents even with
well-maintained aircraft and highly trained aircrews. Despite stringent maintenance
requirements and countless hours of training, past history makes it clear that accidents may
occur.
The risk of people on the ground being killed or injured by aircraft accidents is
miniscule. However, an aircraft accident is a high-consequence event and, when a crash does
occur, the result is often catastrophic. Because of this, the Air Force does not attempt to base
its safety standards on accident probabilities. Instead it approaches this safety issue from a
land use-planning perspective. Designation of safety zones around the airfield and restriction
of incompatible land uses can reduce the public’s exposure to safety hazards.
The AICUZ program includes three safety zones: the CZ, APZ I, and APZ II. These
zones were developed from analysis of over 800 major Air Force accidents that occurred
within 10 miles of an Air Force installation between 1968 and 1995. Figure B-3 in
Appendix B summarizes the location of these accidents.
The CZ has the highest accident potential of the three zones, as 27 percent of accidents
studied occurred in this area. Due to the relatively high accident potential, the Air Force
adopted a policy of acquiring real estate interests in the CZ through purchase or easement
when feasible.
APZ I is an area that possesses somewhat less accident potential than the CZ, with
10 percent of the accidents studied occurring in this zone. APZ II has less accident potential
than APZ I, with 6 percent of the accidents studied occurring in this zone. While the potential
for aircraft accidents in APZs I and II does not warrant land acquisition by the Air Force,
land-use planning and controls are strongly encouraged in these areas for the protection of the
public.
4.6.2 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
Figure 4.5 depicts the CZs and APZs for Runways 17/35 and 12/30 at Tinker AFB.
Each end of each runway has a 3,000 foot by 3,000 foot CZ, a 3,000 foot by 5,000 foot APZ I,
and a 3,000 foot by 7,000 foot APZ II. Accident potential on or adjacent to the runway or
within the CZ is so high that the necessary land use restrictions would prohibit reasonable
economic use of land. As stated previously, it is Air Force policy to request that Congress
authorize and appropriate funds to purchase the real property interests in this area to prevent
incompatible land uses.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-14
Accident potential zone I is less critical than the CZ, but still possesses a significant risk
factor. This 3,000 foot by 5,000 foot area has land use compatibility guidelines that are
sufficiently flexible to allow reasonable economic use of the land, such as
industrial/manufacturing, transportation, communication/utilities, wholesale trade, open
space, recreation, and agriculture. However, uses that concentrate people in small areas are
not acceptable.
Accident potential zone II is less critical than APZ I, but still possesses potential for
accidents. Accident potential zone II, also 3,000 feet wide, is 7,000 feet long extending to
15,000 feet from the runway threshold. Acceptable uses include those of APZ I, as well as
low density single family residential and those personal and business services and
commercial/retail trade uses of low intensity or scale of operation. High density functions
such as multi-story buildings, places of assembly (e.g., theaters, churches, schools,
restaurants, etc.), and high density office uses are not considered appropriate.
High people densities should be limited to the maximum extent possible in APZ II. The
optimum density recommended for residential usage (where it does not conflict with noise
criteria) in APZ II is one dwelling per acre. For most nonresidential usage, buildings should
be limited to one story and the lot coverage should not exceed 20 percent.
Since 1976, APZ II has not been included in AICUZ documents for Runway 12/30
because the majority of flying activity occurred on Runway 17/35. Thus, there would be little
benefit of showing APZ II for the runway because the majority of land northwest of the
airfield was already developed (see Appendix E).
Tinker AFB has included the Runway 12/30 APZs II in this AICUZ Study with the
understanding that existing land uses are grandfathered. While the land uses are incompatible
based on new AICUZ land use recommendations, Tinker AFB does not expect or request
structures be removed. For all intents and purposes, the land uses are considered pre-existing
conditions. The recommended APZ II criteria are intended to apply only to new
development/future redevelopment (see Appendix E).
Air Force policy on APZs is not predicated on the level of runway use; therefore, it is
important the policy be applied consistently. The likelihood of an accident from operations
on Runway 12/30 is much less than an accident on Runway 17/35 due to the lower level of
operations on Runway 12/30. Nevertheless, situations such as closure of Runway 17/35 for
repair will result in an increase in operations on Runway 12/30. It is important that Tinker
AFB provides all necessary information needed for the local communities to make smart
decisions relative to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of citizens because the APZs
are still areas of higher than normal accident potential when that runway is in use. Not
depicting the Runway 12/30 APZs II may give people a false sense that they are not located in
an area of higher than normal aircraft accident potential (see Appendix E).
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
APZ I CZ
APZ II APZ I CZ APZ IIAPZ ICZ
APZ I CZ
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
APZ II APZ II
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 4.5
Clear Zones and Accident Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
Runway Potential Zones
Roadway
Tinker AFB
APZ
CZ Clear Zone
Accident Potential Zone
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
4-15
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-16
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-17
4.6.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Section 4.6.3.1 introduces the AICUZ concept and Section 4.6.3.2 presents the land-use
compatibility guidelines applicable to Tinker AFB.
4.6.3.1 Introduction
The DoD developed the AICUZ program for military airfields. Using this program at
its installations, the DoD works to protect aircraft operational capabilities and to assist local
government officials in protecting and promoting the public’s health, safety, and quality of
life. The goal is to promote compatible land-use development around military airfields by
providing information on aircraft noise exposure and accident potential.
AICUZ reports describe three basic types of constraints that affect, or result from, flight
operations. The first constraint involves areas that the FAA and the DoD identified for height
limitations (see Section 4.2).
The second constraint involves noise zones based on the DNL metric and the DoD
NOISEMAP methodology. Using the NOISEMAP program, which is similar to FAA’s INM,
the Air Force produces noise contours showing the noise levels generated by aircraft
operations. The AICUZ report contains noise contours plotted in 5 dB increments, ranging
from DNL 65 dB to 80+ dB.
The third constraint involves CZs and APZs based on statistical analysis of past DoD
aircraft accidents. DoD analysis has determined that areas immediately beyond the ends of
runways and along the approach and departure flight paths have greater potential for aircraft
accidents (see Figure 4.5).
4.6.3.2 Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines
Each AICUZ Study contains land-use guidelines. Table 4.3 identifies land uses and
possible noise exposure and accident potential combinations for Tinker AFB. These noise
guidelines are essentially the same as those published by the Federal Interagency Committee
on Urban Noise in the June 1980 publication, Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land-Use
Planning and Control. The U.S. Department of Transportation publication, Standard Land
Use Coding Manual (SLUCM), has been used to identify and code land-use activities. The
designations are a combination of criteria listed in the Legend and Notes at the end of the
table. For example, Y1 means land use and related structures are compatible without
restriction at a suggested maximum density of 1-2 dwelling units per acre, possibly increased
under a Planned Unit Development where lot coverage is less than 20 percent.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-18
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Land Use Accident Potential Zones Noise Zones in DNL dB
SLUCM
No.
Name
Clear
Zone
APZ I
APZ II
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
10 Residential
11 Household units
11.11 Single units; detached N N Y1 A11 B11 N N
11.12 Single units;
semidetached
N N N A11 B11 N N
11.13 Single units; attached row N N N A11 B11 N N
11.21 Two units; side-by-side N N N A11 B11 N N
11.22 Two units; one above the
other
N N N A11 B11 N N
11.31 Apartments; walk up N N N A11 B11 N N
11.32 Apartments; elevator N N N A11 B11 N N
12 Group quarters N N N A11 B11 N N
13 Residential hotels N N N A11 B11 N N
14 Mobile home parks or
courts
N N N N N N N
15 Transient lodgings N N N A11 B11 C11 N
16 Other residential N N N1 A11 B11 N N
20 Manufacturing
21 Food & kindred products;
manufacturing
N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
22 Textile mill products;
manufacturing
N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
23 Apparel and other
finished products made
from fabrics, leather, and
similar materials;
manufacturing
N N N2 Y Y12 Y13 Y14
24 Lumber and wood
products (except
furniture); manufacturing
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
25 Furniture and fixtures;
manufacturing
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
26 Paper & allied products;
manufacturing
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
27 Printing, publishing, and
allied industries
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
28 Chemicals and allied
products; manufacturing
N N N2 Y Y12 Y13 Y14
29 Petroleum refining and
related industries
N N Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-19
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (continued)
Land Use Accident Potential Zones Noise Zones
SLUCM
No.
Name
Clear
Zone
APZ I
APZ II
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
30 Manufacturing
31 Rubber and misc. plastic
products, manufacturing
N N2 N2 Y Y12 Y13 Y14
32 Stone, clay and glass
products manufacturing
N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
33 Primary metal industries N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
34 Fabricated metal
products; manufacturing
N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
35 Professional, scientific,
and controlling
instruments; photographic
and optical goods;
watches and clocks
manufacturing
N N N2 Y A B N
39 Miscellaneous
manufacturing
N Y2 Y2 Y Y12 Y13 Y14
40 Transportation,
Communications and
Utilities
41 Railroad, rapid rail transit
and street railroad
transportation
N3 Y4 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
42 Motor vehicle
transportation
N3 Y Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
43 Aircraft transportation N3 Y4 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
44 Marine craft
transportation
N3 Y4 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
45 Highway & street right-of-way
N3 Y Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
46 Automobile parking N3 Y4 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
47 Communications N3 Y4 Y Y A15 B15 N
48 Utilities N3 Y4 Y Y Y Y12 Y13
49 Other transportation
communications and
utilities
N3 Y4 Y Y A15 B15 N
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-20
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (continued)
Land Use Accident Potential Zones Noise Zones
SLUCM
No.
Name
Clear
Zone
APZ I
APZ II
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
50 Trade
51 Wholesale trade N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
52 Retail trade-building
materials, hardware and
farm equipment
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
53 Retail trade-general
merchandise
N N2 Y2 Y A B N
54 Retail trade-food N N2 Y2 Y A B N
55 Retail trade-automotive,
marine craft, aircraft and
accessories
N Y2 Y2 Y A B N
56 Retail trade-apparel and
accessories
N N2 Y2 Y A B N
57 Retail trade-furniture,
home furnishings and
equipment
N N2 Y2 Y A B N
58 Retail trade-eating and
drinking establishments
N N N2 Y A B N
59 Other retail trade N N2 Y2 Y A B N
60 Services
61 Finance, insurance and
real estate services
N N Y6 Y A B N
62 Personal services N N Y6 Y A B N
62.4 Cemeteries N Y7 Y7 Y Y12 Y13 Y14,21
63 Business services N Y8 Y8 Y A B N
64 Repair services N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
65 Professional services N N Y6 Y A B N
65.1 Hospitals, nursing homes N N N A* B* N N
65.1 Other medical facilities N N N Y A B N
66 Contract construction
services
N Y6 Y Y A B N
67 Governmental services N N Y6 Y* A* B* N
68 Educational services N N N A* B* N N
69 Miscellaneous services N N2 Y2 Y A B N
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-21
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (continued)
Land Use Accident Potential Zones Noise Zones
SLUCM
No.
Name
Clear
Zone
APZ I
APZ II
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
70 Cultural, Entertainment
and Recreational
71 Cultural activities
(including churches)
N N N2 A* B* N N
71.2 Nature exhibits N Y2 Y Y* N N N
72 Public assembly N N N Y N N N
72.1 Auditoriums, concert halls N N N A B N N
72.11 Outdoor music shell,
amphitheaters
N N N N N N N
72.2 Outdoor sports arenas,
spectator sports
N N N Y17 Y17 N N
73 Amusements N N Y8 Y Y N N
74 Recreational activities
(including golf courses,
riding stables, water
recreation)
N Y8,9,10 Y Y* A* B* N
75 Resorts and group camps N N N Y* Y* N N
76 Parks N Y8 Y8 Y* Y* N N
79 Other cultural,
entertainment and
recreation
N Y9 Y9 Y* Y* N N
80 Resources Production
and Extraction
81 Agriculture (except
livestock)
Y16 Y Y Y18 Y19 Y20 Y20,21
81.5 to
81.7
Livestock farming and
animal breeding
N Y Y Y18 Y19 Y20 Y20,21
82 Agricultural related
activities
N Y5 Y Y18 Y19 N N
83 Forestry activities and
related services
N5 Y Y Y18 Y19 Y20 Y20,21
84 Fishing activities and
related services
N5 Y5 Y Y Y Y Y
85 Mining activities and
related services
N Y5 Y Y Y Y Y
89 Other resources
production and extraction
N Y5 Y Y Y Y Y
LEGEND
SLUCM - Standard Land Use Coding Manual, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Y - (Yes) - Land use and related structures are compatible without restriction.
N - (No) - Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.
Yx - (yes with restrictions) - Land use and related structures generally compatible; see notes 1-21.
Nx - (no with exceptions) - See notes 1-21.
NLR - (Noise Level Reduction) - NLR (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise
attenuation measures into the design and construction of the structures (see Appendix C, section c.4).
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-22
A, B, or C - Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of A (DNL 25 dB), B
(DNL 30 dB), or C (DNL 35 dB) need to be incorporated into the design and construction of structures.
A*, B*, and C* - Land use generally compatible with NLR. However, measures to achieve an overall noise level
reduction do not necessarily solve noise difficulties and additional evaluation is warranted. See appropriate footnotes.
* - The designation of these uses as “compatible” in this zone reflects individual federal agency and program
consideration of general cost and feasibility factors, as well as past community experiences and program objectives.
Localities, when evaluating the application of these guidelines to specific situations, may have different concerns or goals to
consider.
NOTES
1. Suggested maximum density of 1-2 dwelling units per acre possibly increased under a Planned Unit Development
where maximum lot coverage is less than 20 percent.
2. Within each land use category, uses exist where further definition may be needed due to the variation of densities
in people and structures. Shopping malls and shopping centers are considered incompatible in any accident
potential zone (CZ, APZ I, or APZ II).
3. The placing of structures, buildings, or aboveground utility lines in the clear zone is subject to severe restrictions.
In a majority of the clear zones, these items are prohibited. See AFI 32-7063 and UFC 3-260-01 for specific
guidance.
4. No passenger terminals and no major aboveground transmission lines in APZ I.
5. Factors to be considered: labor intensity, structural coverage, explosive characteristics, and air pollution.
6. Low-intensity office uses only. Meeting places, auditoriums, etc., are not recommended.
7. Excludes chapels.
8. Facilities must be low intensity.
9. Clubhouse not recommended.
10. Areas for gatherings of people are not recommended.
11A. Although local conditions may require residential use, it is discouraged in DNL 65-69 dB and strongly
discouraged in DNL 70-74 dB. An evaluation should be conducted prior to approvals, indicating a demonstrated
community need for residential use would not be met if development were prohibited in these zones, and there are
no viable alternative locations.
11B. Where the community determines the residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor
NLR for DNL 65-69 dB and DNL 70-74 dB should be incorporated into building codes and considered in
individual approvals.
11C. NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. However, building location and site planning, and design
and use of berms and barriers can help mitigate outdoor exposure, particularly from near ground level sources.
Measures that reduce outdoor noise should be used whenever practical in preference to measures which only
protect interior spaces.
12. Measures to achieve the same NLR as required for facilities in the DNL 65-69 dB range must be incorporated into
the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive
areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
13. Measures to achieve the same NLR as required for facilities in the DNL 70-74 dB range must be incorporated into
the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive
areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
14. Measures to achieve the same NLR as required for facilities in the DNL 75-79 dB range must be incorporated into
the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive
areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
15. If noise sensitive, use indicated NLR; if not, the use is compatible.
16. No buildings.
17. Land use is compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.
18. Residential buildings require the same NLR required for facilities in the DNL 65-69 dB range.
19. Residential buildings require the same NLR required for facilities in the DNL 70-74 dB range.
20. Residential buildings are not permitted.
21. Land use is not recommended. If the community decides the use is necessary, personnel should wear hearing
protection devices.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-23
4.7 PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS
The Air Force provides the AICUZ Study to local communities to assist them in
preparing their local land use plans. This section discusses how the base participates in the
community planning process. Section 6.3 addresses the role played by the local community
in enhancing compatible land use.
Airspace obstructions, construction in the APZs, residential development, and the
construction of other noise-sensitive uses near the base are of great concern to Tinker AFB.
The Air Force is very interested in minimizing increases in incompatible usage and in
encouraging voluntary conversion of non-compatible usage to compatible usage. Applying
the categories for compatible land use described in Table 4.3, the Base evaluates the impact
aircraft operations have on surrounding properties and the effect new development or changes
in land use might have on Tinker AFB operational capabilities.
In addition to working with local governing entities and planning professionals, the
Tinker AFB Base Public Affairs Office works to address complaints and concerns expressed
by off-airfield neighbors.
Tinker AFB conducts active outreach to the community by meeting with various
community groups and speaking with individuals as needed. The Tinker AFB Civil Engineer
and Public Affairs Offices work together providing public meetings and informational
workshops to disseminate information about base operations, forecasts, plans, and mitigation
strategies.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-24
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-1
SECTION 5
LAND USE ANALYSIS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Land use planning and control is a dynamic, rather than a static process. The specific
characteristics of land use determinants will always reflect, to some degree, the changing
conditions of the economic, social, and physical environment of a community, as well as
changing public concern. The planning process accommodates this fluidity in which
decisions are normally not based on boundary lines, but rather on more generalized area
designations.
Tinker AFB was originally established in a relatively undeveloped area in Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma. In recent years, however, development has increased north and west of
the Base.
Improvements in computer technology have enabled the Air Force to more precisely
display its flight tracks and noise contours for land use planning purposes. These technical
improvements reveal the extent of the Tinker AFB region of influence into the counties and
surrounding nearby cities and towns.
For the purpose of this Study, existing and future land uses on the figures in this section
are generalized into one of the following six categories:
Residential: This category includes all types of residential activity, such as single and
multi-family residences and mobile homes, at a density greater than one dwelling unit per
acre.
Commercial: This category includes offices, retail, restaurants and other types of
commercial establishments.
Industrial: This category includes manufacturing, warehousing, and other similar uses.
Public/Quasi-Public: This category includes publicly owned lands and/or land to which
the public has access, including military reservations and training grounds, public buildings,
schools, churches, cemeteries, and hospitals.
Recreational: This category includes land areas designated for recreational activity
including parks, wilderness areas and reservations, conservation areas, and areas designated
for trails, hikes, camping, etc.
Open/Agricultural/Low Density: This category includes undeveloped land areas,
agricultural areas, grazing lands and areas with residential activity at densities less than or
equal to one dwelling unit per acre.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-2
5.2 EXISTING LAND USE
Existing land uses in the vicinity of Tinker AFB are shown in Figure 5.1. Land within
the Base environs predominantly falls within the cities of Midwest City, Del City, Oklahoma
City and unincorporated areas of Oklahoma County. The majority of the land surrounding the
Base can be characterized as moderate-density urban developed, with areas of undeveloped
land south of the installation.
Midwest City, located directly north of the installation, is predominantly residential,
with considerable amounts of commercial land uses located along major road corridors.
These commercial corridors are primarily 15th Street, 29th Street, Interstate 40, Air Depot
Boulevard, and Midwest Boulevard. A significant amount of public and institutional uses are
scattered throughout Midwest City. These include City Hall, a public library, post office,
several schools, and the John Conrad Regional Golf Course. In 1973, a large portion of the
Glenwood Subdivision, comprising 343 acres between the Base and Midwest City, was
purchased by Oklahoma County and leased back to Tinker AFB. The land, located in the
Runway 17 APZ I, was cleared of structures and remains undeveloped.
Del City is located northwest of the installation and is a mostly developed, moderate
density, mixed-use community. Predominant land use is residential, with commercial
corridors existing along 15th Street, 29th Street, and Interstate 40. Only limited amounts of
land remain undeveloped in Del City. Limited areas of industrial uses exist in Del City
between Interstate 40 and the Canadian River.
Most of the undeveloped land in the Tinker vicinity lies within Oklahoma City.
Interstate 240 runs east to west just outside of the Runway 35 CZ. A railroad yard, the former
General Motors Assembly Plant (approximately 400 acres), and other industrial uses are
located between the Base and Interstate 240, with sporadic areas of open space intermixed
throughout the corridor. Residential subdivisions are being developed southwest of the
former General Motors Plant, south of Interstate 240. Lake Stanley Draper occupies nearly
3,000 acres south of Interstate 240. The lake is in an Environmental Conservation District
owned by the Oklahoma City Water Trust and is surrounded by a significant amount of
undeveloped land. Outside the eastern boundary of the Base, minimal commercial
development exists along Douglas Boulevard, with sporadic residential development further
east.
Figure 5.1 presents the existing land uses for the area that surrounds Tinker AFB and
within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise exposure area. Table 5.1 summarizes the acreage by
land use category exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 dB and greater. Note that these acreages
represent only the area outside the Tinker AFB boundaries and do not include land leased by
Tinker AFB.
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
APZ I CZ
APZ II APZ I CZ APZ IIAPZ ICZ
APZ I CZ APZ II APZ II
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 5.1
Generalized Existing Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
Land Use with 2006
Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Public/Quasi-Public
Open/Agriculture/Low Density
City Limits
DNL dB Contours
Noise Contours
5-3
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-5
Table 5.1 Generalized Existing Land Use Within DNL 65 dB and Greater
Noise Exposure Area (Off Installation)
Category Acreage
Residential 1,065
Commercial 172
Industrial 256
Public/Quasi-public 161
Recreational 0
Open/Agricultural/Low Density 2,612
Total 4,266
The analysis also includes land use within the Tinker AFB CZs and APZs. Inclusion of
the CZs and APZs in the evaluation shows 479 acres of residential land within the Tinker
AFB CZs and APZs. Table 5.2 reflects the land use (outside the Tinker AFB boundaries)
within the Tinker AFB CZs and APZs.
Table 5.2 Generalized Existing Land Use within the Tinker AFB Clear Zones and
Accident Potential Zones (Off-Installation)
Category Acreage
Residential 441
Commercial 118
Industrial 83
Public/Quasi-public 145
Recreational/Open/Agricultural/Low
Density 1,771
Total 2,558
5.3 CURRENT ZONING
The vast majority of land adjacent to Tinker AFB is zoned. Figure 5.2 overlays the
2006 noise contours, CZs, and APZs on a map displaying the current generalized zoning in
the vicinity of Tinker AFB. As described in the preceding existing land use section, the area
of influence includes the cities of Midwest City, Del City, Oklahoma City, and
unincorporated areas of Oklahoma County.
Zoning within the AICUZ area of influence generally reflects existing land use patterns.
The vast majority of land in the Tinker AFB environs is zoned for various densities of
residential uses. Commercially zoned land exists along the major corridors of Interstate 40,
29th Street, 15th Street, Air Depot Boulevard, and Midwest City Boulevard. Significant
amounts of land are zoned industrial along Interstate 240, southwest of the Base. Large areas
of land are zoned as agricultural district to the east and to the far south of the installation.
Midwest City implements a conventional zoning ordinance that contains a supplement,
“Tinker Air Force Base Zoning Ordinance.” This ordinance regulates development within
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-6
APZ I. Del City also implements a conventional zoning ordinance and has recently
incorporated a section, “Airport Zoning”, that controls development within APZ I. Oklahoma
City’s zoning ordinance contains a section (Oklahoma City Airports Zoning Ordinance) that
regulates height restriction zones around airports and airport environs zones created by the
existing and future potential noise impact. Oklahoma City requires sound proofing new
construction within noise contour levels above DNL 60 dB. The city also restricts
incompatible uses within noise zones above DNL 65 dB. The overlay zoning in the vicinity
of Tinker AFB is based on the noise contours published in the 1983 AICUZ study. These
contours are shown on Figure D-1 in Appendix D. In 2002, Oklahoma County passed a Bond
Issue dedicating 53 acres that were purchased by Oklahoma County between Interstate 40 and
the Base to security of the base and aircraft flight safety/noise by removing homes in this area.
Analysis of the current zoning maps for these jurisdictions was performed to determine
the acreage of each zoning designation within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise area. For this
analysis, zoning designations were generalized into residential, commercial, industrial,
public/quasi-public, and recreational/open/agricultural/low density categories. Several areas
surrounding Tinker AFB are zoned as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), which can be
developed with varying mixed land uses. Generally, these areas are depicted as residential,
although the actual zoning categories are used if specific development plans are known.
Figure 5.2 shows the results of the compilation, and Table 5.3 provides a breakdown of the
generalized zoning (areas outside Tinker AFB only and outside CZs and APZs) within the
DNL 65 dB and greater noise area.
Table 5.3 Generalized Zoning within DNL 65 dB and Greater
Noise Exposure Area (Off-Installation outside CZs and APZs)
Category Acreage
Residential 1,385
Commercial 141
Industrial 255
Public/Quasi-public 0
Recreational/Open/Agricultural/Low Density 934
Total 2,715
Source: Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, Midwest City Zoning Maps,
Oklahoma City Zoning Maps
A similar analysis was performed to determine the acreage of each generalized zoning
category within the Tinker AFB CZs and APZs and is shown on Table 5.4.
5-7
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-9
Table 5.4 Generalized Zoning within the Tinker AFB Clear Zones and Accident
Potential Zones (Off-Installation)
Category Acreage
Residential 1,486
Commercial 191
Industrial 128
Public/Quasi-public 0
Recreational/Open/Agricultural/Low Density 604
Total 2,409
Source: Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, Midwest City Zoning Maps,
Oklahoma City Zoning Maps
5.4 FUTURE LAND USE
Figure 5.3 shows generalized future land use predicted for the Tinker AFB area which
reflects local zoning maps, comprehensive plans, and local development proposals. The
following paragraphs discuss the anticipated future land use patterns.
The developed areas within Midwest City and Del City will maintain their mixture of
residential, commercial, and public uses. Any development in these areas is expected to
consist of infill and redevelopment. Consequently, future land use patterns north and
northwest of the installation will reflect existing land use patterns. Continued commercial
development is anticipated to occur along the major corridors of Interstate 40, 15th Street,
29th Street, Air Depot Boulevard, and Midwest Boulevard. The most noticeable future
development in these areas is an 82-acre commercial development along 29th Street, between
Air Depot and Midwest boulevards, in Midwest City. This new retail area will offer over
320,000 square feet of building space. Expansion of the Tinker Business and Industrial Park
is underway northeast of the intersection of 29th Street and Sooner Road, within the
Runway 12 APZ I.
The Oklahoma City Plan 2020 has proposed four distinct land use plans that may affect
future development and growth with respect to the Base. The areas south and southwest of
Tinker AFB will continue to be industrial. Areas to the west are identified for urban-suburban
development. Land south and southeast of Tinker AFB surrounding Lake Stanley Draper is
reserved for environmental conservation. The area east of Douglas Avenue falls within an
industrial reserve.
Planners at Tinker AFB have developed and nurtured a responsible, proactive and
cooperative environment with residents and community planners of Del City, Midwest City,
Oklahoma City, and Oklahoma County. These departments are actively involved with and
belong to the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG). ACOG provides
support and facilitates understanding in planning practices and fosters an atmosphere of
cooperation in the coordination of sound and responsible regional development.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-10
5.5 INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES
Table 4.3 shows land use compatibility as it is applied to existing land use within the
Tinker AFB area of influence. For a land use area to be considered compatible, it must meet
criteria for its category for both noise and accident potential as shown in Table 4.3. The
compatibility guidelines shown in Table 4.3 were combined with the existing land use data
presented on Figure 5.1 to determine land use compatibility associated with aircraft noise and
the accident potential zones at Tinker AFB. Results of this analysis are shown numerically in
Table 5.5 and graphically on Figure 5.4. There are land uses to the northeast of Tinker AFB
that are considered to be incompatible with base operations.
Table 5.5 Incompatible Land Use for Runways 17/35 and 12/30 at Tinker AFB
Category
Acreage Within
CZs and APZs
Acreage Within Noise Zones,
Not Included in CZs and APZs Total
CLEAR
ZONE APZ I APZ II 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+
Residential • 4 409 676 164 8 • 1,261
Commercial • 41 • 1 • • • 42
Industrial • • • • • • • 0
Public/Quasi-public • 4 121 5 • • • 130
Recreation/Open/
Agricultural/Low Density • • • • • • • 0
Total 0 49 530 682 164 8 0 1,433
• Represents compatible land use
5.5.1 Runways 17 and 35 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
5.5.1.1 Runway 17 Clear Zone (North of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB either owns or holds restrictive easements on all but approximately 12
acres within the Runway 17 CZ. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the
Runway 17 CZ.
5.5.1.2 Runway 17 Accident Potential Zone I (North of the Airfield)
In general, industrial, recreational, vacant, and agricultural/open land uses are
compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ I. Compatibility of commercial uses
within APZ I is dependent on densities and intensity of uses. In 1973, 343 acres of land
located in APZ I between the Base and Midwest City were purchased by Oklahoma County
and leased back to Tinker AFB. This land is mostly undeveloped and is now compatible with
AICUZ guidelines. North of this area, several commercial uses and a public use along 15th
Street are incompatible. The incompatible uses include a bank and two bars and a community
club, which is classified as public use.
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
APZ I CZ
APZ II APZ I CZ APZ II APZ I CZ
APZ I CZ
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
APZ II APZ II
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 5.3
Generalized Future Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
Land Use with 2006
Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Public/Quasi-Public
Open/Agriculture/Low Density
City Limits
DNL dB Contours
Noise Contours
5-11
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-12
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
APZ I CZ
APZ II APZ I CZ APZ IIAPZ ICZ
APZ I CZ APZ II APZ II
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 5.4
Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ Incompatible Land Use
Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
Public/Quasi-Public
Commercial
Residential
City Limits
DNL dB Contours
5-13
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-14
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-15
5.5.1.3 Runway 17 Accident Potential Zone II (North of the Airfield)
Most categories of land use are compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ
II with the exception of public/quasi-public and some densities of residential. These land uses
generally would be incompatible if residential densities are greater than two dwelling units
per acre. A significant amount of residential uses exist in APZ II at a density greater than two
dwelling units per acre and are considered incompatible. Incompatible public uses include an
elementary school, library, post office, nursing home, city hall, and medical center complexes.
5.5.1.4 Runway 35 Clear Zone (South of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB either owns or holds restrictive easements on all the land within the
Runway 35 CZ. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 35 CZ.
5.5.1.5 Runway 35 Accident Potential Zone I (South of the Airfield)
In general, industrial, recreational, vacant, and agricultural/open land uses are
compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ I. Compatibility of commercial uses
within APZ I is dependent on densities and intensity of uses. There are no incompatible land
uses associated with the Runway 35 APZ I.
5.5.1.6 Runway 35 Accident Potential Zone II (South of the Airfield)
Most categories of land use are compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ
II with the exception of public/quasi-public and some densities of residential. These land uses
generally would be incompatible if residential densities are greater than two dwelling units
per acre. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 35 APZ II.
5.5.2 Runways 12 and 30 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
5.5.2.1 Runway 12 Clear Zone (Northwest of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB either owns or holds restrictive easements on all the land within the
Runway 12 CZ. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 12 CZ.
5.5.2.2 Runway 12 Accident Potential Zone I (Northwest of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB owns approximately 175 acres of the Runway 12 APZ I. In general,
industrial, recreational, vacant, and agricultural/open land uses are compatible with the safety
criteria established for APZ I. Compatibility of commercial uses within APZ I is dependent
on densities and intensity of uses. There are incompatible commercial and residential uses
associated with the Runway 12 APZ I. Incompatible commercial uses include the Tinker
Business and Industrial Park, a bar, and a Sam’s Club retail center. Other commercial uses,
including several car dealerships and an auto repair shop, are considered compatible based on
their development density and intensity of use. Incompatible residential uses include a small
amount of single-family residences and a portion of the Kristie Manor apartment complex.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-16
5.5.2.3 Runway 12 Accident Potential Zone II (Northwest of the Airfield)
Most categories of land use are compatible with the safety criteria established for
APZ II with the exception of public/quasi-public and some densities of residential. These
land uses generally would be incompatible if residential densities are greater than two
dwelling units per acre. A significant amount of residential uses exist in APZ II at a density
greater than two dwelling units per acre and are considered incompatible. Incompatible land
uses include a middle school, high school, library, community center, and residential areas
developed at greater than two dwelling unit per acre.
5.5.2.4 Runway 30 Clear Zone (Southeast of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB either owns or holds restrictive easements on all the land within the
Runway 30 CZ. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 30 CZ.
5.5.2.5 Runway 30 Accident Potential Zone I (Southeast of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB owns approximately 92 acres of the Runway 30 APZ I. There are no
incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 30 APZ I.
5.5.2.6 Runway 30 Accident Potential Zone II (Southeast of the Airfield)
Most categories of land use are compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ II
with the exception of public/quasi-public and some densities of residential. All of the
residential areas within APZ II are rural residential, have densities less than two dwelling
units per acre, and are compatible with AICUZ guidelines. There are no incompatible land
uses associated with the Runway 30 APZ II.
5.6 NOISE ZONES
At noise levels between DNL 65-69 dB, the only incompatible land use type is
residential without NLR materials. Residential uses exist within the DNL 65-69 dB noise
exposure zone north of 29th Street in Midwest City. Residential uses also exist within the
DNL 70-79 dB noise exposure zone to the north of the Base. The Steed Elementary School,
located between 15th Street and Reno Avenue, falls within the DNL 75-79 dB noise exposure
zone. Homes that have the recommended NLR measures incorporated into their construction
are considered compatible.
5.7 AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE STUDY UPDATES
AICUZ noise contours describe the noise characteristics of a specific operational
environment, and as such, will change if a significant operational change is made. An AICUZ
Study should be evaluated for an update if the noise exposure map changes by DNL 2 dB or
more in noise sensitive areas when compared to the noise contour map in the last publicly
released AICUZ Study. With this in mind, this AICUZ Study updates the 1998 AICUZ Study
and provides flight track, accident potential zone and noise zone information in this report
which reflects the most accurate picture of the installation’s aircraft activities as of
January 2006.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 6-1
SECTION 6
IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Implementation of the AICUZ Study must be a joint effort between the Air Force and
adjacent communities. The role of the Air Force is to minimize impact on the local
communities by Tinker AFB aircraft operations. The role of the communities is to ensure that
development in the surrounding area is compatible with accepted planning and development
principles and practices.
6.2 AIR FORCE RESPONSIBILITIES
In general, the Air Force perceives its AICUZ responsibilities as encompassing the
areas of flying safety, noise abatement, and participation in the land use planning process.
Well-maintained aircraft and well-trained aircrews do a great deal to assure that aircraft
accidents are avoided. Despite the best aircrew training and aircraft maintenance intentions,
however, history clearly shows that accidents do occur. It is imperative flights be routed over
sparsely populated areas as regularly as possible to reduce the exposure of lives and property
to a potential accident.
Commanders are required by Air Force policy to periodically review existing traffic
patterns, instrument approaches, weather minima, and operating practices, and evaluate these
factors in relationship to populated areas and other local situations. This requirement is a
direct result and expression of Air Force policy that all AICUZ plans must include an analysis
of flying and flying-related activities designed to reduce and control the effects of such
operations on surrounding land areas. Noise is generated from aircraft both in the air and on
the ground. In an effort to reduce the noise effects of Tinker AFB operations on surrounding
communities, the installation routes flight tracks to avoid populated areas.
Preparation and presentation of this Tinker AFB AICUZ Study is one phase of
continuing Air Force participation in the local planning process. It is recognized that as the
local community updates its land use plans, the Air Force must be ready to provide additional
input when needed.
It is also recognized that the AICUZ program is an ongoing activity even after
compatible development plans are adopted and implemented. Tinker AFB personnel are
prepared to participate in the continuing discussion of zoning and other land use matters as
they may affect, or may be affected by the Base. Base personnel also are available to provide
information, criteria, and guidelines to state, regional, and local planning bodies, civic
associations, and similar groups.
Participation in land-use planning can take many forms. The simplest of these forms is
straightforward, consistent two-way discussion and information sharing with both
professionals and neighbors. Copies of the AICUZ Study, including maps, will be provided
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 6-2
to regional planning departments and zoning administrators. Through this communication
process, the Base reviews applications for development or changed use of properties within
the noise impact and safety areas, as well as other nearby parcels. The Base coordinates
closely with surrounding communities and counties on zoning and land-use issues.
6.3 LOCAL COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITIES
Residents in the area neighboring Tinker AFB and Base personnel have a long history
of working together for mutual benefit of the area around the airfield. Local jurisdictions
have taken a proactive approach in incorporating land use regulations into local plans and
ordinances which consider the Tinker AFB flying operations when considering development
proposals. Adoption of the following recommendations will strengthen this relationship,
increase the health and safety of the public, and help protect the integrity of the installation’s
flying mission:
• Continue to incorporate AICUZ policies and guidelines into the comprehensive plans
of Oklahoma County and the cities of Oklahoma City, Midwest City, and Del City.
Use overlay maps of the AICUZ noise contours and Air Force Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines to evaluate existing and future land use proposals.
• Modify existing zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to support the
compatible land uses outlined in this study.
• Modify building codes to ensure new construction within the AICUZ area has the
recommended noise level reductions incorporated into its design and construction.
• Implement height and obstruction ordinances which reflect current Air Force and
FAR Part 77 requirements.
• Keep the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment apprised of any development near
Tinker AFB that may impact the program for Joint Land Use Studies.
• Continue to inform Tinker AFB of planning and zoning actions that have the
potential of affecting Base operations.
• Support the Joint Land Use Study Program for the Tinker AFB area to protect the
area from encroachment.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-1
Appendix A
THE AICUZ CONCEPT, PROGRAM, METHODOLOGY,
AND POLICIES
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-3
THE AICUZ CONCEPT, PROGRAM, METHODOLOGY, AND
POLICIES
A.1 Concept
Federal legislation, national sentiment, and other external forces, which directly affect the
Air Force mission, serve greatly to increase the role of the Air Force in environmental and
planning issues. Problems of airfield encroachment from incompatible land uses surrounding
installations, as well as air and water pollution and socioeconomic impact, require continued
and intensified Air Force involvement. The nature of these problems dictates direct Air Force
participation in comprehensive community and land use planning. Effective, coordinated
planning that bridges the gap between the federal government and the community requires
establishment of good working relationships with local citizens, local planning officials, and
state and federal officials. This depends on creating an atmosphere of mutual trust and
helpfulness. The AICUZ concept has been developed in an effort to:
• protect local citizens from noise exposure and accident potential associated with
flying activities; and
• prevent degradation of the capability of the Air Force to achieve its mission by
promoting compatible land use planning.
The land use guidelines developed herein are a composite of a number of other land use
compatibility studies that have been refined to fit the Tinker AFB aviation environment.
A.2 Program
Installation commanders establish and maintain active programs to promote the
maximum feasible land use compatibility between air installations and neighboring
communities. The program requires that all appropriate government bodies and citizens be
fully informed whenever AICUZ or other planning matters affecting the installation are under
consideration. This includes positive and continuous programs designed to:
• provide information, criteria, and guidelines to federal, state, regional, and local
planning bodies, civic associations, and similar groups;
• inform such groups of the requirements of the flying activity, noise exposure, aircraft
accident potential, and AICUZ plans;
• describe the noise reduction measures that are being used; and
• ensure that all reasonable, economical, and practical measures are taken to reduce or
control the impact of noise-producing activities. These measures include such
considerations as proper location of engine test facilities, provision of sound
suppressors where necessary, and adjustment of flight patterns and/or techniques to
minimize the noise impact on populated areas. This must be done without
jeopardizing safety or operational effectiveness.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-4
A.3 Methodology
The AICUZ consists of land areas upon which certain land uses may obstruct the
airspace or otherwise be hazardous to aircraft operations, and land areas that are exposed to
the health, safety, or welfare hazards of aircraft operations. The AICUZ includes:
• Accident Potential Zones (APZ) and Clear Zones (CZ) based on past Air Force
aircraft accidents and installation operational data (see Appendix B);
• Noise zones (NZ) produced by the computerized DNL modeling of the noise created
by aircraft flight and maintenance operations (see Section 3 of the Study); and
• The area designated by the FAA and the Air Force for purposes of height limitations
in the approach and departure zones of the base (see Section 4 of the Study).
The APZ, CZ, and NZ are the basic building blocks for land use planning with AICUZ
data. Compatible land uses are specified for these zones, and recommendations on building
materials and standards to reduce interior noise levels inside structures are provided in
Section 7.
As part of the AICUZ Program, the only real property acquisition for which the Air
Force has requested and received Congressional authorization, and for which the installation
and major commands request appropriation, are the areas designated as the CZ. Tinker AFB
does not own all property in the CZs. Compatible land use controls for the remaining airfield
area of influence should be accomplished through the community land use planning
processes.
A.4 AICUZ Land Use Development Policies
The basis for any effective land use control system is the development of, and
subsequent adherence to, policies which serve as the standard by which all land use planning
and control actions are evaluated. Tinker AFB recommends the following policies be
considered for incorporation into the comprehensive plans of agencies in the vicinity of the
Base’s area of influence:
A.4.1 Policy 1
To promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, and general welfare
of the inhabitants in the airfield area of influence, it is necessary to:
• guide, control, and regulate future growth and development;
• promote orderly and appropriate use of land;
• protect the character and stability of existing land uses;
• prevent destruction or impairment of the airfield and the public investment therein;
• enhance the quality of living in the areas affected; and
• protect the general economic welfare by restricting incompatible land use.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-5
A.4.2 Policy 2
In furtherance of Policy 1, it is appropriate to:
• establish guidelines of land use compatibility;
• restrict or prohibit incompatible land use;
• prevent establishment of any land use which would unreasonably endanger aircraft
operations and the continued use of the airfield;
• incorporate the AICUZ concept into community land use plans, modifying them
when necessary; and
• adopt appropriate ordinances to implement airfield area of influence land use plans.
A.4.3 Policy 3
Within the boundaries of the CZ, certain land uses are inherently incompatible. The
following land uses are not in the public interest and must be restricted or prohibited:
• uses that release into the air any substance, such as steam, dust, or smoke which
would impair visibility or otherwise interfere with the operation of aircraft;
• uses that produce light emissions, either direct or indirect (reflective), which would
interfere with pilot vision;
• uses that produce electrical emissions which would interfere with aircraft
communication systems or navigation equipment;
• uses that attract birds or waterfowl, such as operation of sanitary landfills,
maintenance or feeding stations, or growth of certain vegetation; and
• uses that provide for structures within 10 feet of aircraft approach-departure and/or
transitional surfaces.
A.4.4 Policy 4
Certain noise levels of varying duration and frequency create hazards to both physical
and mental health. A limited, though definite, danger to life exists in certain areas adjacent to
airfields. Where these conditions are sufficiently severe, it is not consistent with public
health, safety, and welfare to allow the following land uses:
• residential;
• retail business;
• office buildings;
• public buildings (schools, churches, etc.); and
• recreation buildings and structures.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-6
A.4.5 Policy 5
Land areas below takeoff and final approach flight paths are exposed to significant
danger of aircraft accidents. The density of development and intensity of use must be limited
in such areas.
A.4.6 Policy 6
Different land uses have different sensitivities to noise. Standards of land use
acceptability should be adopted, based on these noise sensitivities. In addition, a system of
Noise Level Reduction guidelines (Appendix C) for new construction should be implemented
to permit certain uses where they would otherwise be prohibited.
A.4.7 Policy 7
Land use planning and zoning in the airfield area of influence cannot be based solely on
aircraft-generated effects. Allocation of land used within the AICUZ should be further
refined by consideration of:
• physiographic factors;
• climate and hydrology;
• vegetation;
• surface geology;
• soil characteristics;
• intrinsic land use capabilities and constraints;
• existing land use;
• land ownership patterns and values;
• economic and social demands;
• cost and availability of public utilities, transportation, and community facilities; and
• other noise sources.
A.5 Basic Land Use Compatibility
Research on aircraft accident potential, noise, and land use compatibility is ongoing at a
number of federal and other agencies. These and all other compatibility guidelines must not
be considered inflexible standards. They are the framework within which land use
compatibility questions can be addressed and resolved. In each case, full consideration must
be given to local conditions such as:
• previous community experience with aircraft accidents and noise;
• local building construction and development practices;
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-7
• existing noise environment due to other urban or transportation noise sources;
• time periods of aircraft operations and land use activities;
• specific site analysis; and
• noise buffers, including topography.
These basic guidelines cannot resolve all land use compatibility questions, but they do
offer a reasonable framework within which to work.
A.6 Accident Potential
Each end of Runways 17/35 and 12/30 at Tinker AFB has a 3,000 foot by 3,000 foot CZ
and two APZs (see Section 5). Accident potential on or adjacent to the runway or within a CZ
is so high that the necessary land use restrictions would prohibit reasonable economic use of
land. As stated previously, it is Air Force policy to request Congress to authorize and
appropriate funds for the necessary real property interests in this area to prevent incompatible
land uses.
Accident Potential Zone I is less critical than the CZ, but still possesses a significant risk
factor. This 3,000 foot by 5,000 foot area has land use compatibility guidelines which are
sufficiently flexible to allow reasonable economic use of the land, such as
industrial/manufacturing, transportation, communication/utilities, wholesale trade, open
space, recreation, and agriculture. However, uses that concentrate people are not acceptable.
Accident Potential Zone II is less critical than APZ I, but still possesses potential for
accidents. Accident potential zone II, also 3,000 feet wide, is 7,000 feet long extending to
15,000 feet from the runway threshold. Acceptable uses include those of APZ I, as well as
low density single family residential and those personal and business services and
commercial/retail trade uses of low intensity or scale of operation. High density functions
such as multistory buildings, places of assembly (theaters, churches, schools, restaurants,
etc.), and high density office uses are not considered appropriate.
High density populations should be limited to the maximum extent possible. The
optimum density recommended for residential usage (where it does not conflict with noise
criteria) in APZ II is one dwelling per acre. For most nonresidential usage, buildings should
be limited to one story, and the lot coverage should not exceed 20 percent.
Land use guidelines for the two APZs are based on a hazard index system that compares
the relationship of accident occurrence for five areas:
• on or adjacent to the runway;
• within the CZ;
• in APZ I;
• in APZ II; and
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-8
• in all other areas within a 10 nautical mile radius of the runway.
Accident potential on or adjacent to the runway or within the CZ is so high that few
uses are acceptable. The risk outside APZ I and APZ II, but within the 10 nautical mile radius
area, is significant, but is acceptable if sound engineering and planning practices are followed.
Land use guidelines for APZs I and II have been developed. The main objective has
been to restrict all people-intensive uses because there is greater risk in these areas. The basic
guidelines aim at prevention of uses that:
• have high residential density characteristics;
• have high labor intensity;
• involve above-ground explosives, fire, toxic, corrosive, or other hazardous
characteristics;
• promote population concentrations;
• involve utilities and services required for area-wide population, where disruption
would have an adverse impact (telephone, gas, etc.);
• concentrate people who are unable to respond to emergency situations, such as
children, elderly, handicapped, etc.; and
• pose hazards to aircraft operations.
There is no question that these guidelines are relative. Ideally, there should be no
people-intensive uses in either of these APZs. The free market and private property systems
prevent this where there is a demand for land development. To go beyond these guidelines,
however, substantially increases risk by placing more people in areas where there may
ultimately be an aircraft accident.
A.7 Noise
Nearly all studies analyzing aircraft noise and residential compatibility recommend no
residential uses in noise zones above DNL 75 dB. Usually, no restrictions are recommended
below noise zone DNL 65 dB. There is currently no consensus between DNL 65-74 dB.
These areas may not qualify for federal mortgage insurance in residential categories according
to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Regulation 24 CFR
51B. In many cases, HUD approval requires noise attenuation measures, the Regional
Administrator's concurrence, and an Environmental Impact Statement. The United States
Department of Veterans Affairs also has airfield noise and accident restrictions which apply to
its home loan guarantee program. Whenever possible, residential land use should be located
below DNL 65 dB according to Air Force land use recommendations. Residential buildings
within the DNL 65-75 dB noise contours should contain noise level reduction in accordance
with the Air Force land use compatibility guidelines in the AICUZ Study, Table 4.3.
Most industrial/manufacturing uses are compatible in the airfield area of influence.
Exceptions are uses such as research or scientific activities that require lower noise levels.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-9
Noise attenuation measures are recommended for portions of buildings devoted to office use,
receiving the public, or where the normal background noise level is low.
The transportation, communications, and utilities categories have a high noise level
compatibility because they generally are not people-intensive. When people use land for
these purposes, the use is generally very short in duration. Where buildings are required for
these uses, additional evaluation is warranted.
The commercial/retail trade and personal and business services categories are
compatible without restriction up to DNL 70 dB; however, they are generally incompatible
above DNL 80 dB. Between DNLs 70-79 dB, noise level reduction measures should be
included in the design and construction of buildings.
The nature of most uses in the public and quasi-public services category requires a
quieter environment, and attempts should be made to locate these uses below DNL 65 dB (an
Air Force land use recommendation), or else provide adequate noise level reduction.
Although recreational use has often been recommended as compatible with high noise
levels, recent research has resulted in a more conservative view. Above DNL 75 dB, noise
becomes a factor that limits the ability to enjoy such uses. Where the requirement to hear is a
function of the use (e.g., music shell, etc.), compatibility is limited. Buildings associated with
golf courses and similar uses should be noise attenuated.
With the exception of forestry activities and livestock farming, uses in the resources
production, extraction, and open space category are compatible almost without restrictions.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-10
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-1
Appendix B
CLEAR ZONES AND ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-3
CLEAR ZONES AND ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
B.1 Guidelines For Accident Potential
Areas around airports are exposed to the possibility of aircraft accidents even with well-maintained
aircraft and highly trained aircrews. Despite stringent maintenance requirements
and countless hours of training, history makes it clear that accidents do happen.
When the AICUZ Program began, there were no current comprehensive studies on
accident potential. To support the program, the Air Force completed a study of Air Force
aircraft accidents that occurred between 1968 and 1972 within 10 nautical miles of airfields.
The study of 369 accidents revealed that 75 percent of aircraft accidents occurred on or
adjacent to the runway (1,000 feet to each side of the runway centerline) and in a corridor
3,000 feet (1,500 feet either side of the runway centerline) wide, extending from the runway
threshold along the extended runway centerline for a distance of 15,000 feet. The Air Force
updated these studies and this information is presented later in this section.
The CZ, APZ I, and APZ II were established based on crash patterns. The CZ starts at
the end of the runway and extends outward 3,000 feet. It has the highest accident potential of
the three zones. The Air Force adopted a policy of acquiring property rights to areas
designated as CZs because of the high accident potential. APZ I extends from the CZ an
additional 5,000 feet. It includes an area of reduced accident potential. APZ II extends from
APZ I an additional 7,000 feet in an area of further reduced accident potential.
Research in accident potential conducted by the Air Force was the first significant effort
in this subject area since 1952 when the President’s Airport Commission published “The
Airport and Its Neighbors,” better known as the “Doolittle Report.” The recommendations of
this earlier report were influential in the formulation of the APZ concept.
The risk to people on the ground being killed or injured by aircraft accidents is small.
However, an aircraft accident is a high consequence event, and when a crash does occur, the
result is often catastrophic. Because of this, the Air Force does not attempt to base its safety
standards on accident probabilities. Instead, the Air Force approaches this safety issue from a
land use planning perspective.
B.2 Guidelines For Accident Potential
Military aircraft accidents differ from commercial air carrier and general aviation
accidents because of the variety of aircraft used, the type of missions, and the number of
training flights. In 1973, the Air Force performed a service-wide aircraft accident hazard
study to identify land near airfields with significant accident potential. Accidents studied
occurred within 10 nautical miles of airfields.
The study reviewed 369 major Air Force accidents during 1968-1972, and found that
61 percent of those accidents were related to landing operations, and 39 percent were takeoff
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-4
related. It also found that 70 percent occurred in daylight, and that fighter and training
aircraft accounted for 80 percent of the accidents.
Because the purpose of the study was to identify accident hazards, the study plotted
each of the 369 accidents in relation to the airfield. This plotting found that the accidents
clustered along the runway and its extended centerline. To further refine this clustering, a
tabulation was prepared that described the cumulative frequency of accidents as a function of
distance from the runway centerline along the extended centerline. This analysis was done for
widths of 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 total feet. Table B.1 reflects the location analysis.
Table B.1 Location Analysis
Width of Runway
Extension (feet)
Length From Both Ends of Runway (feet) 2000 3000 4000
Percent of Accidents
On or Adjacent to Runway (1,000 feet to each side of runway centerline) 23 23 23
0 to 3,000 35 39 39
3,000 to 8,000 8 8 8
8,000 to 15,000 5 5 7
Cumulative Percent of Accidents
On or Adjacent to Runway (1,000 feet to each side of runway centerline) 23 23 23
0 to 3,000 58 62 62
3,000 to 8,000 66 70 70
8,000 to 15,000 71 75 77
Figure B.1 indicates that the cumulative number of accidents rises rapidly from the end
of the runway to 3,000 feet, rises more gradually to 8,000 feet, then continues at about the
same rate of increase to 15,000 feet, where it levels off rapidly. The location analysis also
indicates 3,000 feet as the optimum runway extension width and the width which includes the
maximum percentage of accidents in the smallest area.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-5
Figure B.1 Distribution of Air Force Aircraft Accidents
(369 Accidents - 1968 - 1972)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 3000' 8000' 15000' 24000'
Runway Extension
Cumulative % of Accidents
2000' 3000' 4000'
Using the optimum runway extension width, 3,000 feet, and the cumulative distribution
of accidents from the end of the runway, zones were established that minimized the land area
included and maximized the percentage of accidents included. The zone dimensions and
accident statistics for the 1968-1972 study are shown in Figure B.2.
Figure B.2 Air Force Aircraft Accident Data
(369 Accidents - 1968 - 1972)
Runway
Clear Zone APZ 1 APZ II
3000’ 5000’ 7000’
84 Accidents
22.8%
144 Accidents
39.0%
29 Accidents
7.9%
18 Accidents
4.9%
Other Accidents within 10 Nautical Miles
94 Accidents -- 25.4%
3000’
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-6
The original study was updated to include accidents through September 1995. This
updated study includes 838 accidents during the 1968-1995 period. Using the optimum
runway extension width of 3,000 feet, the accident statistics of the updated study are shown in
Figure B.3.
Figure B.3 Air Force Aircraft Accident Data
(838 Accidents - 1968 - 1995)
Runway
Clear Zone APZ 1 APZ II
3000’ 5000’ 7000’
209 Accidents
24.9%
230 Accidents
27.4%
85 Accidents
10.1%
47 Accidents
5.6%
Other Accidents within 10 Nautical Miles
267 Accidents -- 31.9%
3000’
Using the designated zones and accident data, it is possible to calculate a ratio of
percentage of accidents to percentage of area size. These ratios indicate the CZ, with the
smallest area size and the highest number of accidents, has the highest ratio, followed by the
runway and adjacent area, APZ I, and then APZ II. Table B.2 reflects this data.
Table B.2 Accident to Area Ratio
Ratio of Percentage of Accidents to Percentage of Area
(Air Force Accident Data 1968 - 1995)
Area1
(Acres)
Number2
Accident
Accident Per
Acre
Percent of
Total Area
Percent
of Total
Accidents
Ratio:3
% Accidents to
% Area
Runway
Area
487 209 1 Per 2.3 acres 0.183 24.9 136
Clear Zone 413 230 1 Per 1.8 acres 0.155 27.4 177
APZ I 689 85 1 Per 8.1 acres 0.258 10.1 39
APZ II 964 47 1 Per 20.5 acres 0.362 5.6 16
Other Area 264,053 267 1 Per 989 acres 99.042 31.9 0.3
1 Area includes land within 10 nautical miles of runway.
2 Total number of accidents is 838 (through 1995).
3 Percent total accidents divided by percent total area.
Additional accident data for 1986 through July 1995 has been analyzed. Specific
location data for some of the 1986-1995 accidents was not available and these were not
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-7
included in the analysis. Table B.3 compares the 1968-1985 data with the data through July
1995:
Table B.3 Additional Accident Data
1968-1985 1968-1995
ZONE Accidents % of Total Accidents % of Total
On-Runway 197 27.1 209 24.9
Clear Zone 210 28.8 230 27.4
APZ I 57 7.8 85 10.1
APZ II 36 5.0 47 5.7
Other (Within 10 nautical miles) 228 31.3 267 31.9
Total 728 100.0 838 100.0
Analysis has shown that the cumulative changes evident in accident location through
July 1995 reconfirm the dimensions of the CZs and APZs.
B.3 Definable Debris Impact Areas
The Air Force also determined which accidents had definable debris impact areas, and
in what phase of flight the accident occurred. Overall, 75 percent of the accidents had
definable debris impact areas, although they varied in size by type of accident. The Air Force
used weighted averages of impact areas, for accidents occurring only in the approach and
departure phase, to determine the following average impact areas:
Average Impact Areas for Approach and Departure Accidents
Overall Average Impact Area 5.06 acres
Fighter, Trainer, and Misc. Aircraft 2.73 acres
Heavy Bomber and Tanker Aircraft 8.73 acres
B.4 Findings
Designation of safety zones around the airfield and restriction of incompatible land uses
can reduce the public's exposure to safety hazards.
Air Force accident studies have found that aircraft accidents near Air Force installations
occurred in the following patterns:
• 61% were related to landing operations.
• 39% were related to takeoff operations.
• 70% occurred in daylight.
• 80% were related to fighter and training aircraft operations.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-8
• 25% occurred on the runway or within an area extending 1,000 feet out from each
side of the runway.
• 27% occurred in an area extending from the end of the runway to 3,000 feet along
the extended centerline and 3,000 feet wide, centered on the extended centerline.
• 15% occurred in an area between 3,000 and 15,000 feet along the extended runway
centerline and 3,000 feet wide, centered on the extended centerline.
Air Force aircraft accident statistics found 75% of aircraft accidents resulted in
definable impact areas. The size of the impact areas were:
• 5.06 acres overall average.
• 2.73 acres for fighters and trainers.
• 8.73 acres for heavy bombers and tankers.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study C-1
Appendix C
NOISE AND NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION GUIDELINES
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study C-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study C-3
NOISE AND NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION GUIDELINES
C.1 General
Noise, often defined as unwanted sound, is one of the most common environmental
issues associated with aircraft operations. Of course, aircraft are not the only sources of noise
in an urban or suburban surrounding, where noise from interstate and local roadway traffic,
rail, industrial, and neighborhood sources also intrude on the everyday quality of life.
Nevertheless, aircraft are readily identifiable to those affected by their noise and are typically
singled out for special attention and criticism. Consequently, aircraft noise problems often
dominate analyses of environmental impacts.
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a
medium such as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Whether that sound is interpreted as
pleasant (e.g., music) or unpleasant (e.g., aircraft noise) depends largely on t

AIR INSTALLATION
COMPATIBLE USE ZONE
STUDY
Tinker Air Force Base,
Oklahoma
December 2006
AIR INSTALLATION
COMPATIBLE USE ZONE STUDY
TINKER AIR FORCE BASE,
OKLAHOMA
DECEMBER 2006
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF FIGURES................................................................................................................. iv
LIST OF TABLES................................................................................................................... iv
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS ............................................................................... vi
SECTION 1 PURPOSE AND NEED................................................................................... 1-1
1.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 1-1
1.2 Purpose and Need ..................................................................................................... 1-1
1.3 Process, Procedure, and Noise Metrics .................................................................... 1-2
1.4 Computerized Noise Exposure Models .................................................................... 1-2
SECTION 2 INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION................................................................ 2-1
2.1 Description of Tinker Air Force Base ...................................................................... 2-1
2.2 Mission ..................................................................................................................... 2-1
2.3 Economic Impact......................................................................................................2-1
2.3.1 Local Economic Characteristics ...................................................................... 2-1
2.3.2 Base Impact .....................................................................................................2-2
SECTION 3 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS........................................................................... 3-1
3.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 3-1
3.2 Aircraft Operations...................................................................................................3-1
3.3 Runway and Flight Track Utilization ....................................................................... 3-2
3.4 Aircraft Maintenance Runup Operations.................................................................. 3-3
3.5 Aircraft Flight Profiles ............................................................................................. 3-3
3.6 Climatological Data..................................................................................................3-3
SECTION 4 EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS................................................. 4-1
4.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 4-1
4.2 Runway Airspace Imaginary Surfaces ..................................................................... 4-1
4.2.1 Explanation of Terms ......................................................................................4-1
4.2.2 Runway Airspace Imaginary Surfaces ............................................................ 4-1
4.3 Restricted and/or Prohibited Land Uses ................................................................... 4-5
4.4 Noise Exposure.........................................................................................................4-5
4.5 Comparison with 1998 AICUZ Study...................................................................... 4-6
4.6 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones ............................................................ 4-13
4.6.1 Basis for Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones .................................... 4-13
4.6.2 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones ................................................... 4-13
4.6.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines .............................................................. 4-17
4.6.3.1 Introduction ..........................................................................................4-17
4.6.3.2 Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines..................................................... 4-17
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study iii
4.7 Participation in the Planning Process ..................................................................... 4-23
SECTION 5 LAND USE ANALYSIS.................................................................................. 5-1
5.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 5-1
5.2 Existing Land Use .................................................................................................... 5-2
5.3 Current Zoning .........................................................................................................5-5
5.4 Future Land Use ....................................................................................................... 5-9
5.5 Incompatible Land Uses ......................................................................................... 5-10
5.5.1 Runways 17 and 35 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones................... 5-10
5.5.1.1 Runway 17 Clear Zone (North of the Airfield) .................................... 5-10
5.5.1.2 Runway 17 Accident Potential Zone I (North of the Airfield)............. 5-10
5.5.1.3 Runway 17 Accident Potential Zone II (North of the Airfield) ........... 5-15
5.5.1.4 Runway 35 Clear Zone (South of the Airfield) .................................... 5-15
5.5.1.5 Runway 35 Accident Potential Zone I (South of the Airfield)............. 5-15
5.5.1.6 Runway 35 Accident Potential Zone II (South of the Airfield) ........... 5-15
5.5.2 Runways 12 and 30 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones................... 5-15
5.5.2.1 Runway 12 Clear Zone (Northwest of the Airfield)............................. 5-15
5.5.2.2 Runway 12 Accident Potential Zone I (Northwest of the Airfield) ..... 5-15
5.5.2.3 Runway 12 Accident Potential Zone II (Northwest of the Airfield) .... 5-16
5.5.2.4 Runway 30 Clear Zone (Southeast of the Airfield).............................. 5-16
5.5.2.5 Runway 30 Accident Potential Zone I (Southeast of the Airfield) ...... 5-16
5.5.2.6 Runway 30 Accident Potential Zone II (Southeast of the Airfield) ..... 5-16
5.6 Noise Zones............................................................................................................ 5-16
5.7 Air Installation Compatible Use Zone Study Updates ........................................... 5-16
SECTION 6 IMPLEMENTATION..................................................................................... 6-1
6.1 Introduction .............................................................................................................. 6-1
6.2 Air Force Responsibilities ........................................................................................ 6-1
6.3 Local Community Responsibilities .......................................................................... 6-2
APPENDICES
Appendix A The AICUZ Concept, Program, Methodology, and Policies
Appendix B Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
Appendix C Noise and Noise Level Reduction Guidelines
Appendix D 1983 AICUZ Study Noise Contours
Appendix E Headquarters Air Force Material Command Letter
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study iv
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure 2.1 Tinker AFB Location Map ................................................................................. 2-5
Figure 3.1 Arrival Flight Tracks .......................................................................................... 3-5
Figure 3.2 Departure Flight Tracks...................................................................................... 3-7
Figure 3.3 Closed Pattern Flight Tracks .............................................................................. 3-9
Figure 4.1 Class B Air Force Runway Airspace Imaginary Surfaces.................................. 4-3
Figure 4.2 Average Busy-Day Noise Contours for 2006..................................................... 4-7
Figure 4.3 1998 AICUZ Study Noise Contours................................................................... 4-9
Figure 4.4 Comparison of 2006 and 1998 AICUZ Study Noise Contours........................ 4-11
Figure 4.5 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones ...................................................... 4-15
Figure 5.1 Generalized Existing Land Use .......................................................................... 5-3
Figure 5.2 Generalized Zoning ............................................................................................ 5-7
Figure 5.3 Generalized Future Land Use........................................................................... 5-11
Figure 5.4 Incompatible Land Uses ................................................................................... 5-13
LIST OF TABLES
Table 2.1 Historic and Projected Population ...................................................................... 2-2
Table 2.2 Oklahoma City MSA Employment Estimates by Industry Group, 2002 ........... 2-2
Table 2.3 Personnel by Classification ................................................................................ 2-3
Table 2.4 Annual Payroll.................................................................................................... 2-3
Table 3.1 Average Busy-Day Aircraft Operations for 2006 .............................................. 3-2
Table 4.1 Area and Population within DNL 65 dB and Greater Noise Exposure Area
(Off-Installation)................................................................................................. 4-6
Table 4.2 Total Acres within the 2006 and 1998 AICUZ Study Noise Zones................... 4-6
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines ................................................................. 4-18
Table 5.1 Generalized Existing Land Use Within DNL 65 dB and Greater Noise Exposure
Area (Off Installation) ........................................................................................ 5-5
Table 5.2 Generalized Existing Land Use within the Tinker AFB Clear Zones and
Accident Potential Zones (Off-Installation) ....................................................... 5-5
Table 5.3 Generalized Zoning within DNL 65 dB and Greater Noise Exposure Area
(Off-Installation outside CZs and APZs) ........................................................... 5-6
Table 5.4 Generalized Zoning within the Tinker AFB Clear Zones and Accident Potential
Zones (Off-Installation)...................................................................................... 5-9
Table 5.5 Incompatible Land Use for Runways 17/35 and 12/30 at Tinker AFB............ 5-10
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study v
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study vi
ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ACOG Association of Central Oklahoma Governments
AFB Air Force Base
AFI Air Force Instruction
AGL above ground level
AICUZ Air Installation Compatible Use Zone
APZ Accident Potential Zone
CZ Clear Zone
dB decibel
dBA A-weighted sound level measured in decibels
DNL Day-Night Average A-Weighted Sound Level
DoD Department of Defense
FAA Federal Aviation Administration
FAR Federal Aviation Regulations
INM Integrated Noise Model
LZ landing zone
MSA Metropolitan Statistical Area
MSL mean sea level
NLR Noise Level Reduction
OC-ALC Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
SLUCM Standard Land Use Coding Manual
the Base Tinker Air Force Base
UFC Unified Facilities Criteria
US United States
USEPA United States Environmental Protection Agency
VFR visual flight rules
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study vii
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 1-1
SECTION 1
PURPOSE AND NEED
1.1 INTRODUCTION
This study is an update of the 1998 Tinker Air Force Base (AFB), Oklahoma Air
Installation Compatible Use Zone (AICUZ) Study. The update presents and documents
changes to the AICUZ amendment for the period 1998-2006 and is based on the January 2006
aircraft operations condition. This AICUZ Study reaffirms Air Force policy of assisting local,
regional, state, and federal officials in the areas surrounding Tinker AFB by promoting
compatible development within the AICUZ area of influence; and protecting Air Force
operational capability from the effects of land use that are incompatible with aircraft
operations. Specifically, the report documents changes in aircraft operations since the last
study and provides noise contours and compatible use guidelines for land areas surrounding
the installation based on the January 2006 operations. This information is provided to assist
local communities and to serve as a tool for future planning and zoning activities. Changes
that occurred since the 1998 Tinker AFB AICUZ Study include:
• An increase in the number of operations by based aircraft;
• The addition of 4 based KC-135 aircraft;
• An increase in the number of transient aircraft operations at Tinker AFB;
• Addition, elimination, and modification of aircraft flight tracks to correspond to
flying operations changes; and
• Technical improvements to the NOISEMAP computer modeling program.
1.2 PURPOSE AND NEED
The purpose of the long-standing AICUZ program is to promote compatible land
development in areas subject to aircraft noise and accident potential. The Air Force provides
the AICUZ Study to all local communities to assist them in preparing local land use plans. As
the nearby cities of Oklahoma City, Midwest City, Del City, Choctaw, Nicoma Park, and
Spencer and Oklahoma and Cleveland counties prepare and modify land use development
plans, recommendations from this updated AICUZ Study should be included in the planning
process to prevent incompatible land use that could compromise the ability of Tinker AFB to
fulfill its mission. Accident potential and aircraft noise should be major considerations in the
planning process.
Air Force AICUZ guidelines reflect land use recommendations for the Clear Zones
(CZ), Accident Potential Zones (APZ) I and II, and four noise zones exposed to noise levels at
or above 65 decibels (dB) Day-Night Average A-Weighted Sound Level (DNL). These
guidelines were established on the basis of studies prepared and sponsored by several federal
agencies, including the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development, United
States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA), United States Air Force, and state and
local agencies. The guidelines recommend land uses that are compatible with airfield
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 1-2
operations while allowing maximum beneficial use of adjacent properties. The Air Force has
no desire to recommend land use regulations that render property economically useless. It
does, however, have an obligation to the inhabitants of the Tinker AFB area of influence and
the citizens of the United States to point out ways to protect the public investment in the
installation and the people living in areas adjacent to the installation. The AICUZ area of
influence includes the area within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise exposure area and the
area within the CZs and APZs.
1.3 PROCESS, PROCEDURE, AND NOISE METRICS
Preparation and presentation of this update to Tinker AFB’s AICUZ Study is part of the
continuing Air Force participation in the local planning process. Guidance for the Air Force
AICUZ program is contained in Air Force Instruction (AFI) 32-7063, Air Installation
Compatible Use Zone Program, which implements DoD Instruction 4165.57, Air Installations
Compatible Use Zones.
As local communities prepare land use plans and zoning ordinances, the Air Force
recognizes it has the responsibility to provide input on its activities relating to the community.
This study is presented in the spirit of mutual cooperation and assistance by Tinker AFB to
aid in the land use planning process around the Base.
The AICUZ program uses the latest technology to define noise levels in areas near Air
Force installations with a flying mission. Aircraft operational data used in this study were
collected at Tinker AFB in April 2005. The Air Force reviewed and validated the data
through a communicative process that was finalized in January 2006. Aircraft flight data
were obtained to derive average daily operations by runway and type of aircraft. Analysis of
Tinker AFB’s flying operations included the types of aircraft, flight patterns utilized,
variations in altitude, power settings, number of operations, and hours of operations. These
data were supplemented by flight track information (where we fly), flight profile information
(how we fly), and ground runup information. After verification for accuracy, the data were
input into the NOISEMAP Version 7.296 computer program to produce DNL noise contours.
The noise contours for Tinker AFB were plotted on an area map and overlaid with the CZ and
APZ areas for the airfield.
1.4 COMPUTERIZED NOISE EXPOSURE MODELS
The Air Force adopted the NOISEMAP computer program to describe noise impacts
created by aircraft operations. NOISEMAP is one of two USEPA-approved computer
programs; the other is the Integrated Noise Model (INM) used by the Federal Aviation
Administration (FAA) for noise analysis at civil airports. The NOISEMAP and INM
programs are similar; however, INM does not contain noise data for all military aircraft.
NOISEMAP is a suite of computer programs and components developed by the Air
Force to predict noise exposure in the vicinity of an airfield due to aircraft flight,
maintenance, and ground run-up operations. The components of NOISEMAP are:
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 1-3
• BASEOPS is the input module for NOISEMAP and is used to enter detailed aircraft
flight track and profile and ground maintenance operational data.
• NOISEFILE is a comprehensive database of measured military and civil aircraft
noise data. Aircraft operational information is matched with the noise measurements
in the NOISEFILE after the detailed aircraft flight and ground maintenance
operational data has been entered into BASEOPS.
• NMAP is the computational module in NOISEMAP. NMAP takes BASEOPS input
and uses the NOISEFILE database to calculate the noise levels caused by aircraft
events at specified grid points in the airbase vicinity. The output of NMAP is a
series of georeferenced data points, specific grid point locations, and corresponding
noise levels.
• NMPLOT is the program for viewing and editing the sets of georeferenced data
points. NMPLOT plots the NMAP output in a noise contour grid that can be
exported as files that can be used in mapping programs for analyzing the noise
impacts.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 1-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-1
SECTION 2
INSTALLATION DESCRIPTION
2.1 DESCRIPTION OF TINKER AIR FORCE BASE
Tinker AFB lies entirely within the boundaries of Oklahoma County, Oklahoma. The
main portion of Tinker AFB is located within the incorporated city limits of Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma (see Figure 2.1). Centered ten miles southeast of downtown, Tinker AFB is
bordered to the north by Interstate 40 and 29th Street, to the east by Douglas Boulevard, to the
south along 74th Street, and to the west by Sooner Road. Incorporated areas immediately
surrounding the Base include Midwest City to the north and Del City to the northwest.
Tinker AFB encompasses 5,033 acres of federal land with 716 buildings totaling
15.9 million square feet. The Base has a two-runway airfield capable of supporting the
missions of Tinker AFB and the operations at the Oklahoma City Air Logistics Center
(OC-ALC).
2.2 MISSION
Tinker AFB is home to the OC-ALC, 72d Air Base Wing, the 552d Air Control Wing,
the United States Navy (CSCW-1), and the 507th Air Refueling Wing. The last three units
are respectively assigned the E-3, E-6B, and KC-135 aircraft.
The OC-ALC is one of three depot level maintenance facilities in the Air Force Materiel
Command. The OC-ALC is responsible for the depot maintenance of the B-1B, E-3, B-52,
C/KC-135, E-6B, and 25 other Contractor Logistics Support aircraft. The 10th Flight Test
Squadron conducts test flights on B-1B, E-3, B-52, and C/KC-135 aircraft associated with
depot maintenance at the OC-ALC. The OC-ALC is only Air Force depot responsible for
system management and logistics support of the B-2 aircraft and Air Force One. The center
also oversees 23,000 aircraft engines, and a multitude of missile systems for the Department
of Defense.
2.3 ECONOMIC IMPACT
The Economic Impact Region for Tinker AFB is the geographic area subject to
significant Base-generated economic impacts, and is defined as the Oklahoma City
Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA). In 2003, the Office of Management and Budget
reorganized the Oklahoma City MSA by adding Grady and Lincoln Counties and removing
Pottawatomie County from the MSA. The current Oklahoma City MSA is comprised of
Canadian, Grady, Lincoln, Logan, and Oklahoma Counties.
2.3.1 Local Economic Characteristics
As shown in Table 2.1, the Oklahoma City MSA had a population of over 1.08 million
in 2000, making it the 49th largest MSA in the country. The Oklahoma City MSA is
expected to grow in population to over 1.17 million by 2010. This MSA population reflects
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-2
an 11 percent growth over a ten-year period. Oklahoma City grew by 12 percent and Midwest
City recorded a population growth of three percent from 1990 to 2000. Del City experienced
a population decline of less then one percent during the 1990s. Table 2.1 displays the
population for Oklahoma County and the municipalities of Oklahoma City, Midwest City, and
Del City, all of which fall within the Oklahoma City MSA.
Table 2.1 Historic and Projected Population
Area 1990 2000 2004 estimate 2010 projection
Oklahoma City 444,719 506,132 528,042 539,870
Midwest City 52,267 54,0 54,8 57,440
Del City 23,928 22,1 22,0 23,5
Oklahoma County 599,611 660,44 680,81 701,40
Oklahoma City MSA -- 1,083,346 1,171,700
Source: US Census Bureau, 2002, Oklahoma State Data Center, 2002
In 2002, employment within the Oklahoma City MSA was estimated to be over
330,000 persons, with an estimated unemployment rate of 3.7 percent. Trade and health and
social services employ the largest percentage of workers, with over 120,000 employees
(36 percent of total). Table 2.2 presents the Oklahoma City MSA employment by industry
group.
Table 2.2 Oklahoma City MSA Employment Estimates by Industry Group, 2002
Industry Employees
Utilities 2,804
Manufacturing 41,197
Trade 58,681
Transportation and warehousing 14,296
Information 13,919
Finance and insurance 23,119
Real estate, rental, and leasing 8,396
Administrative, waste management, and remediation service 42,758
Health care and social assistance 62,034
Arts, entertainment, and recreation 5,715
Accommodation and food services 43,709
Other services 13,490
Total 330,118
Source: US Census Bureau, 2002 Economic Census
2.3.2 Base Impact
Tinker AFB is the largest single-site employer in the state of Oklahoma. As shown in
Table 2.3, Tinker AFB directly employs over 25,000 personnel. The annual payroll of the
installation is over $1 billion (Table 2.4). As a result of payroll expenditures, annual
expenses, and the estimated value of indirect jobs in the local area, Tinker AFB has an
estimated total economic impact of nearly $2.86 billion on the local MSA and nearly
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-3
$3.03 billion statewide. The majority of this economic impact was due to the payroll and
contracts provided by the installation.
Table 2.3 Personnel by Classification
Classification Total
Active Duty Military 9,410
Total Military 9,410
Civilian Employees 16,270
Military Dependents 3,943
Total Civilian Personnel 20,213
Grand Total 29,623
Source: Tinker AFB Economic Impact Report FY04, Tinker AFB General Plan
Table 2.4 Annual Payroll
Category MSA ($) Statewide ($)
Total Annual Payroll 1,085,300,000 1,141,300,000
Contracts and Procurement 722,600,000 723,300,000
Material, Equipment and Supplies 152,400,000 152,700,000
Construction 21,400,000 35,600,000
Other 34,300,000 34,700,000
Estimated Value of Indirect Jobs 842,000,000 939,000,000
Total 2,858,000,000 3,026,600,000
Source: Tinker AFB Economic Impact Report FY04
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
270
40
240
35 77
35
77
240 62
62
40 270
62
35
35
44
77
77
235
270
44
Tinker
AFB
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Del City
Midwest City
Stanley
Draper
Lake
Lake
Aluma
Nicoma Park
Forest
Park
Moore
Norman
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
Jones
Harrah
The
Village
Nichols
Hills
3
Miles
0
Key Map
Figure 2.1
Location Map
Tinker AFB Tinker AFB - Oklahoma
LEGEND
Runway
Tinker AFB
County Line
Municipal Boundary
Stream/River
Rail Road
Roadway
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
2-5
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 2-6
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-1
SECTION 3
AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
3.1 INTRODUCTION
To describe the relationship between aircraft operations and land use at and around the
airfield, it is necessary to fully evaluate the exact nature of flying activities. The January
2006 inventory of Tinker AFB aircraft operations included where aircraft fly, how high they
fly, how many times they fly over a given area, and the time of day they operate.
Section 3.2 discusses aircraft operations at Tinker AFB. Section 3.3 discusses runway
and flight track utilization for all operations by aircraft type. Section 3.4 describes aircraft
maintenance activity, Section 3.5 discusses aircraft flight profiles, and Section 3.6 presents
climatological data.
3.2 AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
Over 46,000 annual aircraft operations occur at Tinker AFB based on aircraft operations
data validated in January 2006. An aircraft operation is defined as one takeoff/departure, one
approach/landing, or half a closed pattern. A closed pattern consists of two portions, a
takeoff/departure and an approach/landing, i.e., two operations. A sortie is a single military
aircraft flight from the initial takeoff through the termination landing. The minimum number
of aircraft operations for one sortie is two operations, one takeoff (departure) and one landing
(approach).
Table 3.1 summarizes the projected average busy-day aircraft operations for Tinker
AFB based on information provided by Base staff, flying organization, and air traffic control
personnel. Aircraft types operating at the Base consist primarily of military aircraft. In
addition to the Tinker AFB based and depot maintenance aircraft, numerous types of transient
military and civil air carrier aircraft conduct operations at the Base. The table reflects a total
of about 272 average busy-day aircraft operations based on collected operations data. About
7 percent of the total daily operations occur at night (10:00 p.m.-7:00 a.m.).
Although the number of military and civil aircraft operations at an installation usually
varies from day to day, NOISEMAP requires input of the specific numbers of daily flight and
aircraft maintenance engine runup operations. The Air Force does not follow the FAA’s use
of the “average annual day” in which annual operations are averaged over an entire 365-day
year. Neither does the Air Force use the “worst-case day” since it typically does not represent
the typical noise exposure. Instead, the Air Force uses the “average busy-day” concept in
which annual operations for an aircraft type are averaged over the number of flying days per
year by that aircraft type. Non-flying days (e.g., weekends or holidays) are not used in
computing the “average busy-day” operations. Flying activity at Tinker AFB for based and
depot maintenance aircraft occurs 260 days per year. Transient aircraft operations are based
on 365 days per year.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-2
Table 3.1 Average Busy-Day Aircraft Operations for 2006
Category/
Aircraft Type
Daily Arrival/
Departure
Operations
Daily Closed
Pattern
Operations
Total Daily
Operations
Tinker AFB Aircraft
E-3 14.80 49.17 63.97
KC-135 9.25 37.41 46.66
B-737 2.00 4.00 6.00
E-6 10.00 60.80 70.80
Subtotal 36.05 151.38 187.43
Depot Maintenance Aircraft
C/KC-135 0.67 2.68 3.35
E-3 0.12 0.95 1.07
B-52 0.42 0.77 1.19
B-1 0.25 0.15 .040
Subtotal 1.46 4.55 6.01
Transient Aircraft
22 types 27.92 50.92 78.84
Total 65.43 206.85 272.28
Note: An operation is one takeoff/departure or one arrival/landing. A closed pattern
consists of two operations, one takeoff and one landing.
3.3 RUNWAY AND FLIGHT TRACK UTILIZATION
Runway 17/35 is oriented 174°–354°magnetic and Runway 12/30 is oriented 124°–
304°magnetic. The north-south runway (Runway 17/35) is 200 feet wide and 11,100 feet
long. The crosswind runway (Runway 12/30) is 200 feet wide and 10,000 feet long. The
overruns at the ends of each runway are 1,000 feet long and 200 feet wide. The airfield
elevation is 1,291 feet above mean sea level (MSL).
Other airports and military airfields within the area surrounding the base influence
Tinker AFB aircraft arrival and departure flight tracks. The Expressway Airport is 9 miles
north; Downtown Airport is 7 miles west-northwest; the University of Oklahoma/Westheimer
Airport is 11 miles south-southwest; Will Rogers World Airport is 10 miles west-southwest;
and Wiley Post Airport is 14 miles northwest.
Aircraft operating at Tinker AFB use the following flight patterns:
• Departures in all directions;
• Arrivals from all directions;
• Radar closed patterns to the east of the airfield; and
• Overhead and rectangular closed patterns for all aircraft are flown at 1,700 feet
above ground level (AGL).
Flight patterns specific to Tinker AFB result from several considerations, including:
• Takeoff patterns routed to avoid noise-sensitive areas as much as possible;
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-3
• Arrivals and departures routed to avoid restricted airspace;
• Criteria governing the speed, rate of climb, and turning radius for each type of
aircraft;
• Efforts to control and schedule missions to keep noise levels low, especially at night;
and
• Coordination with the FAA to minimize conflict with civil aircraft operations.
Planning for the areas surrounding an airfield considers three primary aircraft
operational/land-use determinants: (1) aircraft accident potential to land users; (2) aircraft
noise; and (3) hazards to operations from land uses (e.g., height of structures). Each of these
concerns is addressed in conjunction with mission requirements and safe aircraft operations to
determine the optimum flight track for each aircraft type. The flight tracks depicted in
Figures 3.1 through 3.3 are the result of such planning and depict the representative flight
tracks used for noise modeling. Runway use is: Runway 12—4 percent: Runway 17—
54 percent; Runway 30—3 percent; and Runway 35—39 percent.
3.4 AIRCRAFT MAINTENANCE RUNUP OPERATIONS
To the maximum extent possible, aircraft maintenance engine runup locations have
been established in areas to minimize noise for people in the surrounding communities, as
well as for those on base. Aircraft maintenance engine runup operations are accomplished by
based flying units and their associated maintenance functions.
Average busy-day aircraft maintenance runup operations were calculated similarly to
flight operations described in Section 3.1. Weekly, monthly, or annual estimates of runups
provided by Tinker AFB aircraft maintenance personnel were divided by the typical number
of days runups were performed over the respective period. Approximately 9 percent of
aircraft maintenance runup operations at Tinker AFB occur during nighttime (10:00 p.m. to
7:00 a.m.).
3.5 AIRCRAFT FLIGHT PROFILES
For purposes of this AICUZ Study, aircraft “flight profiles” denote the aircraft power
settings, altitudes above runway level, and airspeeds along each flight track. Aircraft flight
profiles for E-3, KC-135R, E-6, B-737, C/KC-135, B-52, and B-1 aircraft were obtained from
Tinker AFB personnel. Generic flight profiles from the BASEOPS database were used to
model operations for the other military aircraft types. Noise data from the NOISEFILE
database were used to model operations for all aircraft types.
3.6 CLIMATOLOGICAL DATA
Weather conditions, measured by temperature and relative humidity, are an important
factor in the propagation of noise. Temperature and relative humidity affect sound
absorption. The average temperature and humidity for each month of the year are input into
BASEOPS, which then calculates the sound absorption coefficient for each month. Ranking
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-4
the twelve monthly sound absorption coefficients from smallest to largest, BASEOPS chooses
the sixth smallest sound absorption coefficient to represent the typical weather conditions at
the installation. The month with the sixth smallest sound absorption coefficient for Tinker
AFB is the month with the average monthly temperature of 63 degrees Fahrenheit and
61 percent relative humidity.
3-5
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-6
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17
35
30
12
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Moore Oklahoma City
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
Lake
Aluma
Forest
Park
N. Midwest Blvd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
S. Eastern Ave.
S. Bryant Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
S.E. 149th St.
S.E. 164th St.
S. Choctaw Rd.
N.E. 36th St.
N.E. 50th St.
N.E. 63rd St.
E. Wilshire Blvd.
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
270
62
240
240
40
35
77
62
35
270
40
Jones
Norman
S.E. 134th St.
11,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 3.2
Departure Flight Tracks Tinker AFB - Oklahoma
Runway
Roadway
Flight Track Tinker AFB
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
3-7
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
17
35
30
12
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Moore Oklahoma City
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
Lake
Aluma
Forest
Park
N. Midwest Blvd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
S. Eastern Ave.
S. Bryant Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
S.E. 149th St.
S.E. 164th St.
S. Choctaw Rd.
N.E. 36th St.
N.E. 50th St.
N.E. 63rd St.
E. Wilshire Blvd.
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
270
62
240
240
40
35
77
62
35
270
40
Jones
Norman
S.E. 134th St.
11,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 3.3
Closed Pattern Tinker AFB - Oklahoma
Runway
Roadway
Flight Track Tinker AFB Flight Tracks
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
3-9
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 3-10
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-1
SECTION 4
EFFECTS OF AIRCRAFT OPERATIONS
4.1 INTRODUCTION
This section has two purposes. The first is to describe the imaginary surfaces associated
with obstructions to air navigation, noise exposure, CZs, and APZs. The second purpose is to
present applicable land-use compatibility guidelines and the Air Force’s participation in the
land-use planning process.
4.2 RUNWAY AIRSPACE IMAGINARY SURFACES
Obstructions to air navigation are considered to be:
• Natural objects or man-made structures that protrude above the planes or imaginary
surfaces, and/or;
• Man-made objects that extend more than 500 feet AGL at the site of the structure.
4.2.1 Explanation of Terms
The following elevation, runway length, and dimensional criteria apply:
• Controlling Elevation—Whenever surfaces or planes within the obstruction criteria
overlap, the controlling (or governing) elevation becomes that of the lowest surface
or plane.
• Runway Length—Tinker AFB has two runways. Runway 17/35 is 11,100 feet long
and Runway 12/30 is 10,000 feet long. Both runways are Class B runways that are
designed and built for sustained aircraft landings and take-offs:
• Established Airfield Elevation—The established elevation for the Tinker AFB
airfield is 1,291 feet above MSL.
• Dimensions—All dimensions are measured horizontally unless otherwise noted.
4.2.2 Runway Airspace Imaginary Surfaces
Runway airspace imaginary surfaces, in graphical form, are the result of the application
of obstruction height criteria to Tinker AFB. Imaginary surfaces are surfaces in space around
airfields in relation to runways. The surfaces are designed to define the obstacle-free airspace
at and around the airfield. Refer to Unified Facilities Criteria (UFC) 3-260-01, Airfield and
Heliport Planning and Design, for a more complete description of runway airspace imaginary
surfaces for Class B runways. Figure 4.1 depicts the runway airspace imaginary surfaces for
the Tinker AFB Class B runways. Air Force obstruction criteria in UFC 3-260-01 are based
on those contained in Federal Aviation Regulation (FAR) Part 77, Objects Affecting
Navigable Airspace, Subpart C. The following paragraphs contain definitions of the runway
airspace imaginary surfaces for Air Force class B runways:
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-2
• Primary Surface—An imaginary surface symmetrically centered on the runway,
extending 200 feet beyond each runway end that defines the limits of the obstruction
clearance requirements in the vicinity of the landing area. The width of the primary
surface is 2,000 feet, or 1,000 feet on each side of the runway centerline.
• Clear Zone Surface—An obstruction-free surface (except for features essential for
aircraft operations) on the ground symmetrically centered on the extended runway
centerline beginning at the end of the runway and extending outward 3,000 feet. The
CZ width is 3,000 feet (1,500 feet to either side of runway centerline).
• Accident Potential Zone Surfaces—APZ I begins at the outer end of the CZ and is
5,000 feet long and 3,000 feet wide. APZ II begins at the outer end of APZ I and is
7,000 feet long and 3,000 feet wide.
• Approach-Departure Clearance Surface—This imaginary surface is symmetrically
centered on the extended runway centerline, beginning as an inclined plane (glide
angle) 200 feet beyond each end of the primary surface, and extending for
50,000 feet. The slope of the approach-departure clearance surface is 50:1 until it
reaches an elevation of 500 feet above the established airfield elevation. It then
continues horizontally at this elevation to a point 50,000 feet from the starting point.
The width of this surface at the runway end is 2,000 feet, flaring uniformly to a
width of 16,000 feet at the end point.
• Inner Horizontal Surface—This imaginary surface is an oval plane at a height of
150 feet above the established airfield elevation. The inner boundary intersects with
the approach-departure clearance surface and the transitional surface. The outer
boundary is formed by scribing arcs with a radius 7,500 feet from the centerline of
each runway end and interconnecting these arcs with tangents.
• Conical Surface—This is an inclined imaginary surface extending outward and
upward from the outer periphery of the inner horizontal surface for a horizontal
distance of 7,000 feet to a height of 500 feet above the established airfield elevation.
The slope of the conical surface is 20:1. The conical surface connects the inner and
outer horizontal surfaces.
• Outer Horizontal Surface—This imaginary surface is located 500 feet above the
established airfield elevation and extends outward from the outer periphery of the
conical surface for a horizontal distance of 30,000 feet.
• Transitional Surface—This imaginary surface extends outward and upward at right
angles to the runway centerline and extended runway centerline at a slope of 7:1.
The transitional surface connects the primary and the approach-departure clearance
surfaces to the inner horizontal, the conical, and the outer horizontal surfaces.
4-3
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-5
4.3 RESTRICTED AND/OR PROHIBITED LAND USES
The land areas outlined by these criteria should be regulated to prevent uses that might
otherwise be hazardous to aircraft operations. The following uses should be restricted and/or
prohibited:
• Releases into the air of any substance that would impair visibility or otherwise
interfere with the operation of aircraft (e.g., steam, dust, or smoke);
• Light emissions, either direct or indirect (reflective), that would interfere with pilot
vision;
• Electrical emissions that would interfere with aircraft communications systems or
navigational equipment;
• Uses that would attract birds or waterfowl, including but not limited to, operation of
sanitary landfills, waste transfer facilities, maintenance of feeding stations, sand and
gravel dredging operations, storm water retention ponds, created wetland areas, or
the growing of certain vegetation; and
• Structures within 10 feet of aircraft approach-departure and/or transitional surfaces.
4.4 NOISE EXPOSURE
NOISEMAP Version 7.296 was used to calculate and plot the DNL noise contours
based on the average busy-day aircraft operations data collected in 2006 and described in
Sections 3.1 through 3.6. Figure 4.2 shows the DNL noise contours plotted in 5 dB
increments, ranging from DNL 65 dB to DNL at or above 80 dB
Different sounds have different frequency content. When describing sound and its
effect on a human population, A-weighted (dB) sound levels are typically used to account for
the response of the human ear. The term “A-weighted” refers to a filtering of the sound signal
to emphasize frequencies in the middle of the audible spectrum and to de-emphasize low and
high frequencies in a manner corresponding to the way the human ear perceives sound. This
filtering network has been established by the American National Standards Institute. The
A-weighted noise level has been found to correlate well with people’s judgments of the
noisiness of different sounds and has been in use for many years as a measure of community
noise.
Table 4.1 shows the off-installation noise exposure within the DNL 65 dB and greater
noise exposure area for aircraft operations at Tinker AFB in terms of acreage and estimated
population. DNL is the measure of the total noise environment. DNL averages the sum of all
aircraft noise producing events over a 24-hour period, with a 10 dBA upward adjustment
added to the nighttime events (between 10:00 p.m. and 7:00 a.m.). The population data used
in preparing this estimate was obtained from the United States Census Bureau 2000 census.
To estimate affected population, it was assumed that population was equally distributed
within a census tract area. Using this assumption, the total acreage and population in each
census tract surrounding Tinker AFB was collected and assessed. Using the noise contour
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-6
information, the number of acres of land in each noise zone (i.e., DNL 65-69 dB, 70-74 dB,
75-79 dB, and 80 dB and greater) was divided by the number of acres of land in each census
tract to determine what portion of the census tract was contained within each noise zone. The
population total in each block-group was then multiplied by this ratio to estimate population
exposed to aircraft noise at and above DNL 65 dB.
Table 4.1 Area and Population within DNL 65 dB and Greater
Noise Exposure Area (Off-Installation)
DNL Noise Zone Acres Population
65–69 3,710 5,794
70–74 1,239 3,067
75–79 549 1,247
80+ 75 0
Total 5,573 10,108
From Table 4.1, a total of 5,573 acres and 10,108 persons are expected to be in the
off-installation area within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise exposure area. The largest
affected population is anticipated to be within the DNL 65–69 dB noise zone. This area is
estimated to contain 3,710 acres in off-installation land area (57 percent of the total) and an
estimated population of 5,794 persons (57 percent of the total) based on the calculated
population densities for the area.
4.5 COMPARISON WITH 1998 AICUZ STUDY
Noise contours presented in this study differ in both shape and extent of coverage when
compared to the noise contours in the 1998 AICUZ Study. Figure 4.3 depicts the 1998
AICUZ Study contours and Figure 4.4 compares the 2006 and 1998 contours.
The overall exposure for this AICUZ Study is about 2,010 acres greater than the
1998 AICUZ Study. Table 4.2 lists the total noise exposure for the four noise zones in each
study. The increase in noise exposure since the 1998 AICUZ Study is attributed to the
increase in the number of aircraft operations.
Table 4.2 Total Acres within the 2006 and 1998 AICUZ Study Noise Zones
Acres
DNL Noise Zone 2006 Study 1998 Study
65–69 4,391 3,015
70–74 1,978 1,729
75–79 1,203 919
80+ 844 743
Total 8,416 6,406
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 1 19th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 4.2
Average Busy-Day Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
Noise Contours for 2006
DNL 80 dB Contour
DNL 75 dB Contour
DNL 70 dB Contour
DNL 65 dB Contour Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
4-7
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
65
65
70
70
75
75
75
80
80
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
30
12
S.E. 134th St.
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 4.3
1998 Noise Contours Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
DNL 80 dB Contour
DNL 75 dB Contour
DNL 70 dB Contour
DNL 65 dB Contour Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
4-9
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-10
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
65
65
70
70
75
75
75
80
80
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 1 19th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 4.4
Comparison of 2006 and Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
1998 AICUZ Study
Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
2006 DNL Noise Contour Noise Contours
1998 DNL Noise Contour
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
4-11
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-12
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-13
4.6 CLEAR ZONES AND ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
The purpose of this section is to describe the basis for CZs and APZs and apply the
zones to the Tinker AFB runways.
4.6.1 Basis for Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
Areas around airports are exposed to the possibility of aircraft accidents even with
well-maintained aircraft and highly trained aircrews. Despite stringent maintenance
requirements and countless hours of training, past history makes it clear that accidents may
occur.
The risk of people on the ground being killed or injured by aircraft accidents is
miniscule. However, an aircraft accident is a high-consequence event and, when a crash does
occur, the result is often catastrophic. Because of this, the Air Force does not attempt to base
its safety standards on accident probabilities. Instead it approaches this safety issue from a
land use-planning perspective. Designation of safety zones around the airfield and restriction
of incompatible land uses can reduce the public’s exposure to safety hazards.
The AICUZ program includes three safety zones: the CZ, APZ I, and APZ II. These
zones were developed from analysis of over 800 major Air Force accidents that occurred
within 10 miles of an Air Force installation between 1968 and 1995. Figure B-3 in
Appendix B summarizes the location of these accidents.
The CZ has the highest accident potential of the three zones, as 27 percent of accidents
studied occurred in this area. Due to the relatively high accident potential, the Air Force
adopted a policy of acquiring real estate interests in the CZ through purchase or easement
when feasible.
APZ I is an area that possesses somewhat less accident potential than the CZ, with
10 percent of the accidents studied occurring in this zone. APZ II has less accident potential
than APZ I, with 6 percent of the accidents studied occurring in this zone. While the potential
for aircraft accidents in APZs I and II does not warrant land acquisition by the Air Force,
land-use planning and controls are strongly encouraged in these areas for the protection of the
public.
4.6.2 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
Figure 4.5 depicts the CZs and APZs for Runways 17/35 and 12/30 at Tinker AFB.
Each end of each runway has a 3,000 foot by 3,000 foot CZ, a 3,000 foot by 5,000 foot APZ I,
and a 3,000 foot by 7,000 foot APZ II. Accident potential on or adjacent to the runway or
within the CZ is so high that the necessary land use restrictions would prohibit reasonable
economic use of land. As stated previously, it is Air Force policy to request that Congress
authorize and appropriate funds to purchase the real property interests in this area to prevent
incompatible land uses.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-14
Accident potential zone I is less critical than the CZ, but still possesses a significant risk
factor. This 3,000 foot by 5,000 foot area has land use compatibility guidelines that are
sufficiently flexible to allow reasonable economic use of the land, such as
industrial/manufacturing, transportation, communication/utilities, wholesale trade, open
space, recreation, and agriculture. However, uses that concentrate people in small areas are
not acceptable.
Accident potential zone II is less critical than APZ I, but still possesses potential for
accidents. Accident potential zone II, also 3,000 feet wide, is 7,000 feet long extending to
15,000 feet from the runway threshold. Acceptable uses include those of APZ I, as well as
low density single family residential and those personal and business services and
commercial/retail trade uses of low intensity or scale of operation. High density functions
such as multi-story buildings, places of assembly (e.g., theaters, churches, schools,
restaurants, etc.), and high density office uses are not considered appropriate.
High people densities should be limited to the maximum extent possible in APZ II. The
optimum density recommended for residential usage (where it does not conflict with noise
criteria) in APZ II is one dwelling per acre. For most nonresidential usage, buildings should
be limited to one story and the lot coverage should not exceed 20 percent.
Since 1976, APZ II has not been included in AICUZ documents for Runway 12/30
because the majority of flying activity occurred on Runway 17/35. Thus, there would be little
benefit of showing APZ II for the runway because the majority of land northwest of the
airfield was already developed (see Appendix E).
Tinker AFB has included the Runway 12/30 APZs II in this AICUZ Study with the
understanding that existing land uses are grandfathered. While the land uses are incompatible
based on new AICUZ land use recommendations, Tinker AFB does not expect or request
structures be removed. For all intents and purposes, the land uses are considered pre-existing
conditions. The recommended APZ II criteria are intended to apply only to new
development/future redevelopment (see Appendix E).
Air Force policy on APZs is not predicated on the level of runway use; therefore, it is
important the policy be applied consistently. The likelihood of an accident from operations
on Runway 12/30 is much less than an accident on Runway 17/35 due to the lower level of
operations on Runway 12/30. Nevertheless, situations such as closure of Runway 17/35 for
repair will result in an increase in operations on Runway 12/30. It is important that Tinker
AFB provides all necessary information needed for the local communities to make smart
decisions relative to protecting the health, safety, and welfare of citizens because the APZs
are still areas of higher than normal accident potential when that runway is in use. Not
depicting the Runway 12/30 APZs II may give people a false sense that they are not located in
an area of higher than normal aircraft accident potential (see Appendix E).
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
APZ I CZ
APZ II APZ I CZ APZ IIAPZ ICZ
APZ I CZ
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
APZ II APZ II
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 4.5
Clear Zones and Accident Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
Runway Potential Zones
Roadway
Tinker AFB
APZ
CZ Clear Zone
Accident Potential Zone
City Limits
Note: Unincorporated areas are not shaded.
4-15
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-16
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-17
4.6.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Section 4.6.3.1 introduces the AICUZ concept and Section 4.6.3.2 presents the land-use
compatibility guidelines applicable to Tinker AFB.
4.6.3.1 Introduction
The DoD developed the AICUZ program for military airfields. Using this program at
its installations, the DoD works to protect aircraft operational capabilities and to assist local
government officials in protecting and promoting the public’s health, safety, and quality of
life. The goal is to promote compatible land-use development around military airfields by
providing information on aircraft noise exposure and accident potential.
AICUZ reports describe three basic types of constraints that affect, or result from, flight
operations. The first constraint involves areas that the FAA and the DoD identified for height
limitations (see Section 4.2).
The second constraint involves noise zones based on the DNL metric and the DoD
NOISEMAP methodology. Using the NOISEMAP program, which is similar to FAA’s INM,
the Air Force produces noise contours showing the noise levels generated by aircraft
operations. The AICUZ report contains noise contours plotted in 5 dB increments, ranging
from DNL 65 dB to 80+ dB.
The third constraint involves CZs and APZs based on statistical analysis of past DoD
aircraft accidents. DoD analysis has determined that areas immediately beyond the ends of
runways and along the approach and departure flight paths have greater potential for aircraft
accidents (see Figure 4.5).
4.6.3.2 Land-Use Compatibility Guidelines
Each AICUZ Study contains land-use guidelines. Table 4.3 identifies land uses and
possible noise exposure and accident potential combinations for Tinker AFB. These noise
guidelines are essentially the same as those published by the Federal Interagency Committee
on Urban Noise in the June 1980 publication, Guidelines for Considering Noise in Land-Use
Planning and Control. The U.S. Department of Transportation publication, Standard Land
Use Coding Manual (SLUCM), has been used to identify and code land-use activities. The
designations are a combination of criteria listed in the Legend and Notes at the end of the
table. For example, Y1 means land use and related structures are compatible without
restriction at a suggested maximum density of 1-2 dwelling units per acre, possibly increased
under a Planned Unit Development where lot coverage is less than 20 percent.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-18
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines
Land Use Accident Potential Zones Noise Zones in DNL dB
SLUCM
No.
Name
Clear
Zone
APZ I
APZ II
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
10 Residential
11 Household units
11.11 Single units; detached N N Y1 A11 B11 N N
11.12 Single units;
semidetached
N N N A11 B11 N N
11.13 Single units; attached row N N N A11 B11 N N
11.21 Two units; side-by-side N N N A11 B11 N N
11.22 Two units; one above the
other
N N N A11 B11 N N
11.31 Apartments; walk up N N N A11 B11 N N
11.32 Apartments; elevator N N N A11 B11 N N
12 Group quarters N N N A11 B11 N N
13 Residential hotels N N N A11 B11 N N
14 Mobile home parks or
courts
N N N N N N N
15 Transient lodgings N N N A11 B11 C11 N
16 Other residential N N N1 A11 B11 N N
20 Manufacturing
21 Food & kindred products;
manufacturing
N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
22 Textile mill products;
manufacturing
N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
23 Apparel and other
finished products made
from fabrics, leather, and
similar materials;
manufacturing
N N N2 Y Y12 Y13 Y14
24 Lumber and wood
products (except
furniture); manufacturing
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
25 Furniture and fixtures;
manufacturing
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
26 Paper & allied products;
manufacturing
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
27 Printing, publishing, and
allied industries
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
28 Chemicals and allied
products; manufacturing
N N N2 Y Y12 Y13 Y14
29 Petroleum refining and
related industries
N N Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-19
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (continued)
Land Use Accident Potential Zones Noise Zones
SLUCM
No.
Name
Clear
Zone
APZ I
APZ II
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
30 Manufacturing
31 Rubber and misc. plastic
products, manufacturing
N N2 N2 Y Y12 Y13 Y14
32 Stone, clay and glass
products manufacturing
N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
33 Primary metal industries N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
34 Fabricated metal
products; manufacturing
N N2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
35 Professional, scientific,
and controlling
instruments; photographic
and optical goods;
watches and clocks
manufacturing
N N N2 Y A B N
39 Miscellaneous
manufacturing
N Y2 Y2 Y Y12 Y13 Y14
40 Transportation,
Communications and
Utilities
41 Railroad, rapid rail transit
and street railroad
transportation
N3 Y4 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
42 Motor vehicle
transportation
N3 Y Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
43 Aircraft transportation N3 Y4 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
44 Marine craft
transportation
N3 Y4 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
45 Highway & street right-of-way
N3 Y Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
46 Automobile parking N3 Y4 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
47 Communications N3 Y4 Y Y A15 B15 N
48 Utilities N3 Y4 Y Y Y Y12 Y13
49 Other transportation
communications and
utilities
N3 Y4 Y Y A15 B15 N
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-20
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (continued)
Land Use Accident Potential Zones Noise Zones
SLUCM
No.
Name
Clear
Zone
APZ I
APZ II
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
50 Trade
51 Wholesale trade N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
52 Retail trade-building
materials, hardware and
farm equipment
N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
53 Retail trade-general
merchandise
N N2 Y2 Y A B N
54 Retail trade-food N N2 Y2 Y A B N
55 Retail trade-automotive,
marine craft, aircraft and
accessories
N Y2 Y2 Y A B N
56 Retail trade-apparel and
accessories
N N2 Y2 Y A B N
57 Retail trade-furniture,
home furnishings and
equipment
N N2 Y2 Y A B N
58 Retail trade-eating and
drinking establishments
N N N2 Y A B N
59 Other retail trade N N2 Y2 Y A B N
60 Services
61 Finance, insurance and
real estate services
N N Y6 Y A B N
62 Personal services N N Y6 Y A B N
62.4 Cemeteries N Y7 Y7 Y Y12 Y13 Y14,21
63 Business services N Y8 Y8 Y A B N
64 Repair services N Y2 Y Y Y12 Y13 Y14
65 Professional services N N Y6 Y A B N
65.1 Hospitals, nursing homes N N N A* B* N N
65.1 Other medical facilities N N N Y A B N
66 Contract construction
services
N Y6 Y Y A B N
67 Governmental services N N Y6 Y* A* B* N
68 Educational services N N N A* B* N N
69 Miscellaneous services N N2 Y2 Y A B N
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-21
Table 4.3 Land Use Compatibility Guidelines (continued)
Land Use Accident Potential Zones Noise Zones
SLUCM
No.
Name
Clear
Zone
APZ I
APZ II
65-69
70-74
75-79
80+
70 Cultural, Entertainment
and Recreational
71 Cultural activities
(including churches)
N N N2 A* B* N N
71.2 Nature exhibits N Y2 Y Y* N N N
72 Public assembly N N N Y N N N
72.1 Auditoriums, concert halls N N N A B N N
72.11 Outdoor music shell,
amphitheaters
N N N N N N N
72.2 Outdoor sports arenas,
spectator sports
N N N Y17 Y17 N N
73 Amusements N N Y8 Y Y N N
74 Recreational activities
(including golf courses,
riding stables, water
recreation)
N Y8,9,10 Y Y* A* B* N
75 Resorts and group camps N N N Y* Y* N N
76 Parks N Y8 Y8 Y* Y* N N
79 Other cultural,
entertainment and
recreation
N Y9 Y9 Y* Y* N N
80 Resources Production
and Extraction
81 Agriculture (except
livestock)
Y16 Y Y Y18 Y19 Y20 Y20,21
81.5 to
81.7
Livestock farming and
animal breeding
N Y Y Y18 Y19 Y20 Y20,21
82 Agricultural related
activities
N Y5 Y Y18 Y19 N N
83 Forestry activities and
related services
N5 Y Y Y18 Y19 Y20 Y20,21
84 Fishing activities and
related services
N5 Y5 Y Y Y Y Y
85 Mining activities and
related services
N Y5 Y Y Y Y Y
89 Other resources
production and extraction
N Y5 Y Y Y Y Y
LEGEND
SLUCM - Standard Land Use Coding Manual, U.S. Department of Transportation.
Y - (Yes) - Land use and related structures are compatible without restriction.
N - (No) - Land use and related structures are not compatible and should be prohibited.
Yx - (yes with restrictions) - Land use and related structures generally compatible; see notes 1-21.
Nx - (no with exceptions) - See notes 1-21.
NLR - (Noise Level Reduction) - NLR (outdoor to indoor) to be achieved through incorporation of noise
attenuation measures into the design and construction of the structures (see Appendix C, section c.4).
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-22
A, B, or C - Land use and related structures generally compatible; measures to achieve NLR of A (DNL 25 dB), B
(DNL 30 dB), or C (DNL 35 dB) need to be incorporated into the design and construction of structures.
A*, B*, and C* - Land use generally compatible with NLR. However, measures to achieve an overall noise level
reduction do not necessarily solve noise difficulties and additional evaluation is warranted. See appropriate footnotes.
* - The designation of these uses as “compatible” in this zone reflects individual federal agency and program
consideration of general cost and feasibility factors, as well as past community experiences and program objectives.
Localities, when evaluating the application of these guidelines to specific situations, may have different concerns or goals to
consider.
NOTES
1. Suggested maximum density of 1-2 dwelling units per acre possibly increased under a Planned Unit Development
where maximum lot coverage is less than 20 percent.
2. Within each land use category, uses exist where further definition may be needed due to the variation of densities
in people and structures. Shopping malls and shopping centers are considered incompatible in any accident
potential zone (CZ, APZ I, or APZ II).
3. The placing of structures, buildings, or aboveground utility lines in the clear zone is subject to severe restrictions.
In a majority of the clear zones, these items are prohibited. See AFI 32-7063 and UFC 3-260-01 for specific
guidance.
4. No passenger terminals and no major aboveground transmission lines in APZ I.
5. Factors to be considered: labor intensity, structural coverage, explosive characteristics, and air pollution.
6. Low-intensity office uses only. Meeting places, auditoriums, etc., are not recommended.
7. Excludes chapels.
8. Facilities must be low intensity.
9. Clubhouse not recommended.
10. Areas for gatherings of people are not recommended.
11A. Although local conditions may require residential use, it is discouraged in DNL 65-69 dB and strongly
discouraged in DNL 70-74 dB. An evaluation should be conducted prior to approvals, indicating a demonstrated
community need for residential use would not be met if development were prohibited in these zones, and there are
no viable alternative locations.
11B. Where the community determines the residential uses must be allowed, measures to achieve outdoor to indoor
NLR for DNL 65-69 dB and DNL 70-74 dB should be incorporated into building codes and considered in
individual approvals.
11C. NLR criteria will not eliminate outdoor noise problems. However, building location and site planning, and design
and use of berms and barriers can help mitigate outdoor exposure, particularly from near ground level sources.
Measures that reduce outdoor noise should be used whenever practical in preference to measures which only
protect interior spaces.
12. Measures to achieve the same NLR as required for facilities in the DNL 65-69 dB range must be incorporated into
the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive
areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
13. Measures to achieve the same NLR as required for facilities in the DNL 70-74 dB range must be incorporated into
the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive
areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
14. Measures to achieve the same NLR as required for facilities in the DNL 75-79 dB range must be incorporated into
the design and construction of portions of these buildings where the public is received, office areas, noise sensitive
areas, or where the normal noise level is low.
15. If noise sensitive, use indicated NLR; if not, the use is compatible.
16. No buildings.
17. Land use is compatible provided special sound reinforcement systems are installed.
18. Residential buildings require the same NLR required for facilities in the DNL 65-69 dB range.
19. Residential buildings require the same NLR required for facilities in the DNL 70-74 dB range.
20. Residential buildings are not permitted.
21. Land use is not recommended. If the community decides the use is necessary, personnel should wear hearing
protection devices.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-23
4.7 PARTICIPATION IN THE PLANNING PROCESS
The Air Force provides the AICUZ Study to local communities to assist them in
preparing their local land use plans. This section discusses how the base participates in the
community planning process. Section 6.3 addresses the role played by the local community
in enhancing compatible land use.
Airspace obstructions, construction in the APZs, residential development, and the
construction of other noise-sensitive uses near the base are of great concern to Tinker AFB.
The Air Force is very interested in minimizing increases in incompatible usage and in
encouraging voluntary conversion of non-compatible usage to compatible usage. Applying
the categories for compatible land use described in Table 4.3, the Base evaluates the impact
aircraft operations have on surrounding properties and the effect new development or changes
in land use might have on Tinker AFB operational capabilities.
In addition to working with local governing entities and planning professionals, the
Tinker AFB Base Public Affairs Office works to address complaints and concerns expressed
by off-airfield neighbors.
Tinker AFB conducts active outreach to the community by meeting with various
community groups and speaking with individuals as needed. The Tinker AFB Civil Engineer
and Public Affairs Offices work together providing public meetings and informational
workshops to disseminate information about base operations, forecasts, plans, and mitigation
strategies.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 4-24
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-1
SECTION 5
LAND USE ANALYSIS
5.1 INTRODUCTION
Land use planning and control is a dynamic, rather than a static process. The specific
characteristics of land use determinants will always reflect, to some degree, the changing
conditions of the economic, social, and physical environment of a community, as well as
changing public concern. The planning process accommodates this fluidity in which
decisions are normally not based on boundary lines, but rather on more generalized area
designations.
Tinker AFB was originally established in a relatively undeveloped area in Oklahoma
County, Oklahoma. In recent years, however, development has increased north and west of
the Base.
Improvements in computer technology have enabled the Air Force to more precisely
display its flight tracks and noise contours for land use planning purposes. These technical
improvements reveal the extent of the Tinker AFB region of influence into the counties and
surrounding nearby cities and towns.
For the purpose of this Study, existing and future land uses on the figures in this section
are generalized into one of the following six categories:
Residential: This category includes all types of residential activity, such as single and
multi-family residences and mobile homes, at a density greater than one dwelling unit per
acre.
Commercial: This category includes offices, retail, restaurants and other types of
commercial establishments.
Industrial: This category includes manufacturing, warehousing, and other similar uses.
Public/Quasi-Public: This category includes publicly owned lands and/or land to which
the public has access, including military reservations and training grounds, public buildings,
schools, churches, cemeteries, and hospitals.
Recreational: This category includes land areas designated for recreational activity
including parks, wilderness areas and reservations, conservation areas, and areas designated
for trails, hikes, camping, etc.
Open/Agricultural/Low Density: This category includes undeveloped land areas,
agricultural areas, grazing lands and areas with residential activity at densities less than or
equal to one dwelling unit per acre.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-2
5.2 EXISTING LAND USE
Existing land uses in the vicinity of Tinker AFB are shown in Figure 5.1. Land within
the Base environs predominantly falls within the cities of Midwest City, Del City, Oklahoma
City and unincorporated areas of Oklahoma County. The majority of the land surrounding the
Base can be characterized as moderate-density urban developed, with areas of undeveloped
land south of the installation.
Midwest City, located directly north of the installation, is predominantly residential,
with considerable amounts of commercial land uses located along major road corridors.
These commercial corridors are primarily 15th Street, 29th Street, Interstate 40, Air Depot
Boulevard, and Midwest Boulevard. A significant amount of public and institutional uses are
scattered throughout Midwest City. These include City Hall, a public library, post office,
several schools, and the John Conrad Regional Golf Course. In 1973, a large portion of the
Glenwood Subdivision, comprising 343 acres between the Base and Midwest City, was
purchased by Oklahoma County and leased back to Tinker AFB. The land, located in the
Runway 17 APZ I, was cleared of structures and remains undeveloped.
Del City is located northwest of the installation and is a mostly developed, moderate
density, mixed-use community. Predominant land use is residential, with commercial
corridors existing along 15th Street, 29th Street, and Interstate 40. Only limited amounts of
land remain undeveloped in Del City. Limited areas of industrial uses exist in Del City
between Interstate 40 and the Canadian River.
Most of the undeveloped land in the Tinker vicinity lies within Oklahoma City.
Interstate 240 runs east to west just outside of the Runway 35 CZ. A railroad yard, the former
General Motors Assembly Plant (approximately 400 acres), and other industrial uses are
located between the Base and Interstate 240, with sporadic areas of open space intermixed
throughout the corridor. Residential subdivisions are being developed southwest of the
former General Motors Plant, south of Interstate 240. Lake Stanley Draper occupies nearly
3,000 acres south of Interstate 240. The lake is in an Environmental Conservation District
owned by the Oklahoma City Water Trust and is surrounded by a significant amount of
undeveloped land. Outside the eastern boundary of the Base, minimal commercial
development exists along Douglas Boulevard, with sporadic residential development further
east.
Figure 5.1 presents the existing land uses for the area that surrounds Tinker AFB and
within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise exposure area. Table 5.1 summarizes the acreage by
land use category exposed to noise levels of DNL 65 dB and greater. Note that these acreages
represent only the area outside the Tinker AFB boundaries and do not include land leased by
Tinker AFB.
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
APZ I CZ
APZ II APZ I CZ APZ IIAPZ ICZ
APZ I CZ APZ II APZ II
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 5.1
Generalized Existing Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
Land Use with 2006
Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Public/Quasi-Public
Open/Agriculture/Low Density
City Limits
DNL dB Contours
Noise Contours
5-3
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-4
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-5
Table 5.1 Generalized Existing Land Use Within DNL 65 dB and Greater
Noise Exposure Area (Off Installation)
Category Acreage
Residential 1,065
Commercial 172
Industrial 256
Public/Quasi-public 161
Recreational 0
Open/Agricultural/Low Density 2,612
Total 4,266
The analysis also includes land use within the Tinker AFB CZs and APZs. Inclusion of
the CZs and APZs in the evaluation shows 479 acres of residential land within the Tinker
AFB CZs and APZs. Table 5.2 reflects the land use (outside the Tinker AFB boundaries)
within the Tinker AFB CZs and APZs.
Table 5.2 Generalized Existing Land Use within the Tinker AFB Clear Zones and
Accident Potential Zones (Off-Installation)
Category Acreage
Residential 441
Commercial 118
Industrial 83
Public/Quasi-public 145
Recreational/Open/Agricultural/Low
Density 1,771
Total 2,558
5.3 CURRENT ZONING
The vast majority of land adjacent to Tinker AFB is zoned. Figure 5.2 overlays the
2006 noise contours, CZs, and APZs on a map displaying the current generalized zoning in
the vicinity of Tinker AFB. As described in the preceding existing land use section, the area
of influence includes the cities of Midwest City, Del City, Oklahoma City, and
unincorporated areas of Oklahoma County.
Zoning within the AICUZ area of influence generally reflects existing land use patterns.
The vast majority of land in the Tinker AFB environs is zoned for various densities of
residential uses. Commercially zoned land exists along the major corridors of Interstate 40,
29th Street, 15th Street, Air Depot Boulevard, and Midwest City Boulevard. Significant
amounts of land are zoned industrial along Interstate 240, southwest of the Base. Large areas
of land are zoned as agricultural district to the east and to the far south of the installation.
Midwest City implements a conventional zoning ordinance that contains a supplement,
“Tinker Air Force Base Zoning Ordinance.” This ordinance regulates development within
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-6
APZ I. Del City also implements a conventional zoning ordinance and has recently
incorporated a section, “Airport Zoning”, that controls development within APZ I. Oklahoma
City’s zoning ordinance contains a section (Oklahoma City Airports Zoning Ordinance) that
regulates height restriction zones around airports and airport environs zones created by the
existing and future potential noise impact. Oklahoma City requires sound proofing new
construction within noise contour levels above DNL 60 dB. The city also restricts
incompatible uses within noise zones above DNL 65 dB. The overlay zoning in the vicinity
of Tinker AFB is based on the noise contours published in the 1983 AICUZ study. These
contours are shown on Figure D-1 in Appendix D. In 2002, Oklahoma County passed a Bond
Issue dedicating 53 acres that were purchased by Oklahoma County between Interstate 40 and
the Base to security of the base and aircraft flight safety/noise by removing homes in this area.
Analysis of the current zoning maps for these jurisdictions was performed to determine
the acreage of each zoning designation within the DNL 65 dB and greater noise area. For this
analysis, zoning designations were generalized into residential, commercial, industrial,
public/quasi-public, and recreational/open/agricultural/low density categories. Several areas
surrounding Tinker AFB are zoned as Planned Unit Developments (PUDs), which can be
developed with varying mixed land uses. Generally, these areas are depicted as residential,
although the actual zoning categories are used if specific development plans are known.
Figure 5.2 shows the results of the compilation, and Table 5.3 provides a breakdown of the
generalized zoning (areas outside Tinker AFB only and outside CZs and APZs) within the
DNL 65 dB and greater noise area.
Table 5.3 Generalized Zoning within DNL 65 dB and Greater
Noise Exposure Area (Off-Installation outside CZs and APZs)
Category Acreage
Residential 1,385
Commercial 141
Industrial 255
Public/Quasi-public 0
Recreational/Open/Agricultural/Low Density 934
Total 2,715
Source: Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, Midwest City Zoning Maps,
Oklahoma City Zoning Maps
A similar analysis was performed to determine the acreage of each generalized zoning
category within the Tinker AFB CZs and APZs and is shown on Table 5.4.
5-7
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-8
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-9
Table 5.4 Generalized Zoning within the Tinker AFB Clear Zones and Accident
Potential Zones (Off-Installation)
Category Acreage
Residential 1,486
Commercial 191
Industrial 128
Public/Quasi-public 0
Recreational/Open/Agricultural/Low Density 604
Total 2,409
Source: Association of Central Oklahoma Governments, Midwest City Zoning Maps,
Oklahoma City Zoning Maps
5.4 FUTURE LAND USE
Figure 5.3 shows generalized future land use predicted for the Tinker AFB area which
reflects local zoning maps, comprehensive plans, and local development proposals. The
following paragraphs discuss the anticipated future land use patterns.
The developed areas within Midwest City and Del City will maintain their mixture of
residential, commercial, and public uses. Any development in these areas is expected to
consist of infill and redevelopment. Consequently, future land use patterns north and
northwest of the installation will reflect existing land use patterns. Continued commercial
development is anticipated to occur along the major corridors of Interstate 40, 15th Street,
29th Street, Air Depot Boulevard, and Midwest Boulevard. The most noticeable future
development in these areas is an 82-acre commercial development along 29th Street, between
Air Depot and Midwest boulevards, in Midwest City. This new retail area will offer over
320,000 square feet of building space. Expansion of the Tinker Business and Industrial Park
is underway northeast of the intersection of 29th Street and Sooner Road, within the
Runway 12 APZ I.
The Oklahoma City Plan 2020 has proposed four distinct land use plans that may affect
future development and growth with respect to the Base. The areas south and southwest of
Tinker AFB will continue to be industrial. Areas to the west are identified for urban-suburban
development. Land south and southeast of Tinker AFB surrounding Lake Stanley Draper is
reserved for environmental conservation. The area east of Douglas Avenue falls within an
industrial reserve.
Planners at Tinker AFB have developed and nurtured a responsible, proactive and
cooperative environment with residents and community planners of Del City, Midwest City,
Oklahoma City, and Oklahoma County. These departments are actively involved with and
belong to the Association of Central Oklahoma Governments (ACOG). ACOG provides
support and facilitates understanding in planning practices and fosters an atmosphere of
cooperation in the coordination of sound and responsible regional development.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-10
5.5 INCOMPATIBLE LAND USES
Table 4.3 shows land use compatibility as it is applied to existing land use within the
Tinker AFB area of influence. For a land use area to be considered compatible, it must meet
criteria for its category for both noise and accident potential as shown in Table 4.3. The
compatibility guidelines shown in Table 4.3 were combined with the existing land use data
presented on Figure 5.1 to determine land use compatibility associated with aircraft noise and
the accident potential zones at Tinker AFB. Results of this analysis are shown numerically in
Table 5.5 and graphically on Figure 5.4. There are land uses to the northeast of Tinker AFB
that are considered to be incompatible with base operations.
Table 5.5 Incompatible Land Use for Runways 17/35 and 12/30 at Tinker AFB
Category
Acreage Within
CZs and APZs
Acreage Within Noise Zones,
Not Included in CZs and APZs Total
CLEAR
ZONE APZ I APZ II 65-69 70-74 75-79 80+
Residential • 4 409 676 164 8 • 1,261
Commercial • 41 • 1 • • • 42
Industrial • • • • • • • 0
Public/Quasi-public • 4 121 5 • • • 130
Recreation/Open/
Agricultural/Low Density • • • • • • • 0
Total 0 49 530 682 164 8 0 1,433
• Represents compatible land use
5.5.1 Runways 17 and 35 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
5.5.1.1 Runway 17 Clear Zone (North of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB either owns or holds restrictive easements on all but approximately 12
acres within the Runway 17 CZ. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the
Runway 17 CZ.
5.5.1.2 Runway 17 Accident Potential Zone I (North of the Airfield)
In general, industrial, recreational, vacant, and agricultural/open land uses are
compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ I. Compatibility of commercial uses
within APZ I is dependent on densities and intensity of uses. In 1973, 343 acres of land
located in APZ I between the Base and Midwest City were purchased by Oklahoma County
and leased back to Tinker AFB. This land is mostly undeveloped and is now compatible with
AICUZ guidelines. North of this area, several commercial uses and a public use along 15th
Street are incompatible. The incompatible uses include a bank and two bars and a community
club, which is classified as public use.
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
APZ I CZ
APZ II APZ I CZ APZ II APZ I CZ
APZ I CZ
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
APZ II APZ II
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 5.3
Generalized Future Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ
Land Use with 2006
Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
Industrial
Commercial
Residential
Public/Quasi-Public
Open/Agriculture/Low Density
City Limits
DNL dB Contours
Noise Contours
5-11
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-12
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
270
62
240
240
40
270
40
17
35
30
12
80
65
65
65
70
70
75
75
Lake
Stanley
Draper
Crutcho Creek
North Canadian River
Oklahoma City
Midwest City
Del City
N.E. 23rd St.
N. Douglas Blvd.
E. Reno Ave.
S.E. 44th St.
S.E. 59th St.
S.E. 29th St.
S. Air Depot Blvd.
S.E. 104th St.
S.E. 119th St.
S.E. 15th St.
N.E. 10th St.
N. Air Depot Blvd.
S. Sooner Rd.
N. Sooner Rd.
Choctaw
Spencer
Oklahoma City
Oklahoma City
Moore
Nicoma Park
S. Post Rd.
S. Westminister Rd.
S. Anderson Rd.
S. Hiwassee Rd.
S. Bryant Ave.
S. Eastern Ave.
S.E. 89th St.
N. Sunnylane Rd.
N. Post Rd.
N. Midwest Blvd.
Forest
Park
OKLAHOMA COUNTY
CLEVELAND COUNTY
S.E. 74th St.
S.E. 134th St.
APZ I CZ
APZ II APZ I CZ APZ IIAPZ ICZ
APZ I CZ APZ II APZ II
N.E. 36th St.
8,000
Feet
0
LEGEND
Figure 5.4
Tinker Air Force Base 2006 AICUZ Incompatible Land Use
Runway
Roadway
Tinker AFB
Public/Quasi-Public
Commercial
Residential
City Limits
DNL dB Contours
5-13
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-14
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-15
5.5.1.3 Runway 17 Accident Potential Zone II (North of the Airfield)
Most categories of land use are compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ
II with the exception of public/quasi-public and some densities of residential. These land uses
generally would be incompatible if residential densities are greater than two dwelling units
per acre. A significant amount of residential uses exist in APZ II at a density greater than two
dwelling units per acre and are considered incompatible. Incompatible public uses include an
elementary school, library, post office, nursing home, city hall, and medical center complexes.
5.5.1.4 Runway 35 Clear Zone (South of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB either owns or holds restrictive easements on all the land within the
Runway 35 CZ. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 35 CZ.
5.5.1.5 Runway 35 Accident Potential Zone I (South of the Airfield)
In general, industrial, recreational, vacant, and agricultural/open land uses are
compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ I. Compatibility of commercial uses
within APZ I is dependent on densities and intensity of uses. There are no incompatible land
uses associated with the Runway 35 APZ I.
5.5.1.6 Runway 35 Accident Potential Zone II (South of the Airfield)
Most categories of land use are compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ
II with the exception of public/quasi-public and some densities of residential. These land uses
generally would be incompatible if residential densities are greater than two dwelling units
per acre. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 35 APZ II.
5.5.2 Runways 12 and 30 Clear Zones and Accident Potential Zones
5.5.2.1 Runway 12 Clear Zone (Northwest of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB either owns or holds restrictive easements on all the land within the
Runway 12 CZ. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 12 CZ.
5.5.2.2 Runway 12 Accident Potential Zone I (Northwest of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB owns approximately 175 acres of the Runway 12 APZ I. In general,
industrial, recreational, vacant, and agricultural/open land uses are compatible with the safety
criteria established for APZ I. Compatibility of commercial uses within APZ I is dependent
on densities and intensity of uses. There are incompatible commercial and residential uses
associated with the Runway 12 APZ I. Incompatible commercial uses include the Tinker
Business and Industrial Park, a bar, and a Sam’s Club retail center. Other commercial uses,
including several car dealerships and an auto repair shop, are considered compatible based on
their development density and intensity of use. Incompatible residential uses include a small
amount of single-family residences and a portion of the Kristie Manor apartment complex.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 5-16
5.5.2.3 Runway 12 Accident Potential Zone II (Northwest of the Airfield)
Most categories of land use are compatible with the safety criteria established for
APZ II with the exception of public/quasi-public and some densities of residential. These
land uses generally would be incompatible if residential densities are greater than two
dwelling units per acre. A significant amount of residential uses exist in APZ II at a density
greater than two dwelling units per acre and are considered incompatible. Incompatible land
uses include a middle school, high school, library, community center, and residential areas
developed at greater than two dwelling unit per acre.
5.5.2.4 Runway 30 Clear Zone (Southeast of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB either owns or holds restrictive easements on all the land within the
Runway 30 CZ. There are no incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 30 CZ.
5.5.2.5 Runway 30 Accident Potential Zone I (Southeast of the Airfield)
Tinker AFB owns approximately 92 acres of the Runway 30 APZ I. There are no
incompatible land uses associated with the Runway 30 APZ I.
5.5.2.6 Runway 30 Accident Potential Zone II (Southeast of the Airfield)
Most categories of land use are compatible with the safety criteria established for APZ II
with the exception of public/quasi-public and some densities of residential. All of the
residential areas within APZ II are rural residential, have densities less than two dwelling
units per acre, and are compatible with AICUZ guidelines. There are no incompatible land
uses associated with the Runway 30 APZ II.
5.6 NOISE ZONES
At noise levels between DNL 65-69 dB, the only incompatible land use type is
residential without NLR materials. Residential uses exist within the DNL 65-69 dB noise
exposure zone north of 29th Street in Midwest City. Residential uses also exist within the
DNL 70-79 dB noise exposure zone to the north of the Base. The Steed Elementary School,
located between 15th Street and Reno Avenue, falls within the DNL 75-79 dB noise exposure
zone. Homes that have the recommended NLR measures incorporated into their construction
are considered compatible.
5.7 AIR INSTALLATION COMPATIBLE USE ZONE STUDY UPDATES
AICUZ noise contours describe the noise characteristics of a specific operational
environment, and as such, will change if a significant operational change is made. An AICUZ
Study should be evaluated for an update if the noise exposure map changes by DNL 2 dB or
more in noise sensitive areas when compared to the noise contour map in the last publicly
released AICUZ Study. With this in mind, this AICUZ Study updates the 1998 AICUZ Study
and provides flight track, accident potential zone and noise zone information in this report
which reflects the most accurate picture of the installation’s aircraft activities as of
January 2006.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 6-1
SECTION 6
IMPLEMENTATION
6.1 INTRODUCTION
Implementation of the AICUZ Study must be a joint effort between the Air Force and
adjacent communities. The role of the Air Force is to minimize impact on the local
communities by Tinker AFB aircraft operations. The role of the communities is to ensure that
development in the surrounding area is compatible with accepted planning and development
principles and practices.
6.2 AIR FORCE RESPONSIBILITIES
In general, the Air Force perceives its AICUZ responsibilities as encompassing the
areas of flying safety, noise abatement, and participation in the land use planning process.
Well-maintained aircraft and well-trained aircrews do a great deal to assure that aircraft
accidents are avoided. Despite the best aircrew training and aircraft maintenance intentions,
however, history clearly shows that accidents do occur. It is imperative flights be routed over
sparsely populated areas as regularly as possible to reduce the exposure of lives and property
to a potential accident.
Commanders are required by Air Force policy to periodically review existing traffic
patterns, instrument approaches, weather minima, and operating practices, and evaluate these
factors in relationship to populated areas and other local situations. This requirement is a
direct result and expression of Air Force policy that all AICUZ plans must include an analysis
of flying and flying-related activities designed to reduce and control the effects of such
operations on surrounding land areas. Noise is generated from aircraft both in the air and on
the ground. In an effort to reduce the noise effects of Tinker AFB operations on surrounding
communities, the installation routes flight tracks to avoid populated areas.
Preparation and presentation of this Tinker AFB AICUZ Study is one phase of
continuing Air Force participation in the local planning process. It is recognized that as the
local community updates its land use plans, the Air Force must be ready to provide additional
input when needed.
It is also recognized that the AICUZ program is an ongoing activity even after
compatible development plans are adopted and implemented. Tinker AFB personnel are
prepared to participate in the continuing discussion of zoning and other land use matters as
they may affect, or may be affected by the Base. Base personnel also are available to provide
information, criteria, and guidelines to state, regional, and local planning bodies, civic
associations, and similar groups.
Participation in land-use planning can take many forms. The simplest of these forms is
straightforward, consistent two-way discussion and information sharing with both
professionals and neighbors. Copies of the AICUZ Study, including maps, will be provided
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study 6-2
to regional planning departments and zoning administrators. Through this communication
process, the Base reviews applications for development or changed use of properties within
the noise impact and safety areas, as well as other nearby parcels. The Base coordinates
closely with surrounding communities and counties on zoning and land-use issues.
6.3 LOCAL COMMUNITY RESPONSIBILITIES
Residents in the area neighboring Tinker AFB and Base personnel have a long history
of working together for mutual benefit of the area around the airfield. Local jurisdictions
have taken a proactive approach in incorporating land use regulations into local plans and
ordinances which consider the Tinker AFB flying operations when considering development
proposals. Adoption of the following recommendations will strengthen this relationship,
increase the health and safety of the public, and help protect the integrity of the installation’s
flying mission:
• Continue to incorporate AICUZ policies and guidelines into the comprehensive plans
of Oklahoma County and the cities of Oklahoma City, Midwest City, and Del City.
Use overlay maps of the AICUZ noise contours and Air Force Land Use
Compatibility Guidelines to evaluate existing and future land use proposals.
• Modify existing zoning ordinances and subdivision regulations to support the
compatible land uses outlined in this study.
• Modify building codes to ensure new construction within the AICUZ area has the
recommended noise level reductions incorporated into its design and construction.
• Implement height and obstruction ordinances which reflect current Air Force and
FAR Part 77 requirements.
• Keep the DoD Office of Economic Adjustment apprised of any development near
Tinker AFB that may impact the program for Joint Land Use Studies.
• Continue to inform Tinker AFB of planning and zoning actions that have the
potential of affecting Base operations.
• Support the Joint Land Use Study Program for the Tinker AFB area to protect the
area from encroachment.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-1
Appendix A
THE AICUZ CONCEPT, PROGRAM, METHODOLOGY,
AND POLICIES
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-3
THE AICUZ CONCEPT, PROGRAM, METHODOLOGY, AND
POLICIES
A.1 Concept
Federal legislation, national sentiment, and other external forces, which directly affect the
Air Force mission, serve greatly to increase the role of the Air Force in environmental and
planning issues. Problems of airfield encroachment from incompatible land uses surrounding
installations, as well as air and water pollution and socioeconomic impact, require continued
and intensified Air Force involvement. The nature of these problems dictates direct Air Force
participation in comprehensive community and land use planning. Effective, coordinated
planning that bridges the gap between the federal government and the community requires
establishment of good working relationships with local citizens, local planning officials, and
state and federal officials. This depends on creating an atmosphere of mutual trust and
helpfulness. The AICUZ concept has been developed in an effort to:
• protect local citizens from noise exposure and accident potential associated with
flying activities; and
• prevent degradation of the capability of the Air Force to achieve its mission by
promoting compatible land use planning.
The land use guidelines developed herein are a composite of a number of other land use
compatibility studies that have been refined to fit the Tinker AFB aviation environment.
A.2 Program
Installation commanders establish and maintain active programs to promote the
maximum feasible land use compatibility between air installations and neighboring
communities. The program requires that all appropriate government bodies and citizens be
fully informed whenever AICUZ or other planning matters affecting the installation are under
consideration. This includes positive and continuous programs designed to:
• provide information, criteria, and guidelines to federal, state, regional, and local
planning bodies, civic associations, and similar groups;
• inform such groups of the requirements of the flying activity, noise exposure, aircraft
accident potential, and AICUZ plans;
• describe the noise reduction measures that are being used; and
• ensure that all reasonable, economical, and practical measures are taken to reduce or
control the impact of noise-producing activities. These measures include such
considerations as proper location of engine test facilities, provision of sound
suppressors where necessary, and adjustment of flight patterns and/or techniques to
minimize the noise impact on populated areas. This must be done without
jeopardizing safety or operational effectiveness.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-4
A.3 Methodology
The AICUZ consists of land areas upon which certain land uses may obstruct the
airspace or otherwise be hazardous to aircraft operations, and land areas that are exposed to
the health, safety, or welfare hazards of aircraft operations. The AICUZ includes:
• Accident Potential Zones (APZ) and Clear Zones (CZ) based on past Air Force
aircraft accidents and installation operational data (see Appendix B);
• Noise zones (NZ) produced by the computerized DNL modeling of the noise created
by aircraft flight and maintenance operations (see Section 3 of the Study); and
• The area designated by the FAA and the Air Force for purposes of height limitations
in the approach and departure zones of the base (see Section 4 of the Study).
The APZ, CZ, and NZ are the basic building blocks for land use planning with AICUZ
data. Compatible land uses are specified for these zones, and recommendations on building
materials and standards to reduce interior noise levels inside structures are provided in
Section 7.
As part of the AICUZ Program, the only real property acquisition for which the Air
Force has requested and received Congressional authorization, and for which the installation
and major commands request appropriation, are the areas designated as the CZ. Tinker AFB
does not own all property in the CZs. Compatible land use controls for the remaining airfield
area of influence should be accomplished through the community land use planning
processes.
A.4 AICUZ Land Use Development Policies
The basis for any effective land use control system is the development of, and
subsequent adherence to, policies which serve as the standard by which all land use planning
and control actions are evaluated. Tinker AFB recommends the following policies be
considered for incorporation into the comprehensive plans of agencies in the vicinity of the
Base’s area of influence:
A.4.1 Policy 1
To promote the public health, safety, peace, comfort, convenience, and general welfare
of the inhabitants in the airfield area of influence, it is necessary to:
• guide, control, and regulate future growth and development;
• promote orderly and appropriate use of land;
• protect the character and stability of existing land uses;
• prevent destruction or impairment of the airfield and the public investment therein;
• enhance the quality of living in the areas affected; and
• protect the general economic welfare by restricting incompatible land use.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-5
A.4.2 Policy 2
In furtherance of Policy 1, it is appropriate to:
• establish guidelines of land use compatibility;
• restrict or prohibit incompatible land use;
• prevent establishment of any land use which would unreasonably endanger aircraft
operations and the continued use of the airfield;
• incorporate the AICUZ concept into community land use plans, modifying them
when necessary; and
• adopt appropriate ordinances to implement airfield area of influence land use plans.
A.4.3 Policy 3
Within the boundaries of the CZ, certain land uses are inherently incompatible. The
following land uses are not in the public interest and must be restricted or prohibited:
• uses that release into the air any substance, such as steam, dust, or smoke which
would impair visibility or otherwise interfere with the operation of aircraft;
• uses that produce light emissions, either direct or indirect (reflective), which would
interfere with pilot vision;
• uses that produce electrical emissions which would interfere with aircraft
communication systems or navigation equipment;
• uses that attract birds or waterfowl, such as operation of sanitary landfills,
maintenance or feeding stations, or growth of certain vegetation; and
• uses that provide for structures within 10 feet of aircraft approach-departure and/or
transitional surfaces.
A.4.4 Policy 4
Certain noise levels of varying duration and frequency create hazards to both physical
and mental health. A limited, though definite, danger to life exists in certain areas adjacent to
airfields. Where these conditions are sufficiently severe, it is not consistent with public
health, safety, and welfare to allow the following land uses:
• residential;
• retail business;
• office buildings;
• public buildings (schools, churches, etc.); and
• recreation buildings and structures.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-6
A.4.5 Policy 5
Land areas below takeoff and final approach flight paths are exposed to significant
danger of aircraft accidents. The density of development and intensity of use must be limited
in such areas.
A.4.6 Policy 6
Different land uses have different sensitivities to noise. Standards of land use
acceptability should be adopted, based on these noise sensitivities. In addition, a system of
Noise Level Reduction guidelines (Appendix C) for new construction should be implemented
to permit certain uses where they would otherwise be prohibited.
A.4.7 Policy 7
Land use planning and zoning in the airfield area of influence cannot be based solely on
aircraft-generated effects. Allocation of land used within the AICUZ should be further
refined by consideration of:
• physiographic factors;
• climate and hydrology;
• vegetation;
• surface geology;
• soil characteristics;
• intrinsic land use capabilities and constraints;
• existing land use;
• land ownership patterns and values;
• economic and social demands;
• cost and availability of public utilities, transportation, and community facilities; and
• other noise sources.
A.5 Basic Land Use Compatibility
Research on aircraft accident potential, noise, and land use compatibility is ongoing at a
number of federal and other agencies. These and all other compatibility guidelines must not
be considered inflexible standards. They are the framework within which land use
compatibility questions can be addressed and resolved. In each case, full consideration must
be given to local conditions such as:
• previous community experience with aircraft accidents and noise;
• local building construction and development practices;
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-7
• existing noise environment due to other urban or transportation noise sources;
• time periods of aircraft operations and land use activities;
• specific site analysis; and
• noise buffers, including topography.
These basic guidelines cannot resolve all land use compatibility questions, but they do
offer a reasonable framework within which to work.
A.6 Accident Potential
Each end of Runways 17/35 and 12/30 at Tinker AFB has a 3,000 foot by 3,000 foot CZ
and two APZs (see Section 5). Accident potential on or adjacent to the runway or within a CZ
is so high that the necessary land use restrictions would prohibit reasonable economic use of
land. As stated previously, it is Air Force policy to request Congress to authorize and
appropriate funds for the necessary real property interests in this area to prevent incompatible
land uses.
Accident Potential Zone I is less critical than the CZ, but still possesses a significant risk
factor. This 3,000 foot by 5,000 foot area has land use compatibility guidelines which are
sufficiently flexible to allow reasonable economic use of the land, such as
industrial/manufacturing, transportation, communication/utilities, wholesale trade, open
space, recreation, and agriculture. However, uses that concentrate people are not acceptable.
Accident Potential Zone II is less critical than APZ I, but still possesses potential for
accidents. Accident potential zone II, also 3,000 feet wide, is 7,000 feet long extending to
15,000 feet from the runway threshold. Acceptable uses include those of APZ I, as well as
low density single family residential and those personal and business services and
commercial/retail trade uses of low intensity or scale of operation. High density functions
such as multistory buildings, places of assembly (theaters, churches, schools, restaurants,
etc.), and high density office uses are not considered appropriate.
High density populations should be limited to the maximum extent possible. The
optimum density recommended for residential usage (where it does not conflict with noise
criteria) in APZ II is one dwelling per acre. For most nonresidential usage, buildings should
be limited to one story, and the lot coverage should not exceed 20 percent.
Land use guidelines for the two APZs are based on a hazard index system that compares
the relationship of accident occurrence for five areas:
• on or adjacent to the runway;
• within the CZ;
• in APZ I;
• in APZ II; and
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-8
• in all other areas within a 10 nautical mile radius of the runway.
Accident potential on or adjacent to the runway or within the CZ is so high that few
uses are acceptable. The risk outside APZ I and APZ II, but within the 10 nautical mile radius
area, is significant, but is acceptable if sound engineering and planning practices are followed.
Land use guidelines for APZs I and II have been developed. The main objective has
been to restrict all people-intensive uses because there is greater risk in these areas. The basic
guidelines aim at prevention of uses that:
• have high residential density characteristics;
• have high labor intensity;
• involve above-ground explosives, fire, toxic, corrosive, or other hazardous
characteristics;
• promote population concentrations;
• involve utilities and services required for area-wide population, where disruption
would have an adverse impact (telephone, gas, etc.);
• concentrate people who are unable to respond to emergency situations, such as
children, elderly, handicapped, etc.; and
• pose hazards to aircraft operations.
There is no question that these guidelines are relative. Ideally, there should be no
people-intensive uses in either of these APZs. The free market and private property systems
prevent this where there is a demand for land development. To go beyond these guidelines,
however, substantially increases risk by placing more people in areas where there may
ultimately be an aircraft accident.
A.7 Noise
Nearly all studies analyzing aircraft noise and residential compatibility recommend no
residential uses in noise zones above DNL 75 dB. Usually, no restrictions are recommended
below noise zone DNL 65 dB. There is currently no consensus between DNL 65-74 dB.
These areas may not qualify for federal mortgage insurance in residential categories according
to United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) Regulation 24 CFR
51B. In many cases, HUD approval requires noise attenuation measures, the Regional
Administrator's concurrence, and an Environmental Impact Statement. The United States
Department of Veterans Affairs also has airfield noise and accident restrictions which apply to
its home loan guarantee program. Whenever possible, residential land use should be located
below DNL 65 dB according to Air Force land use recommendations. Residential buildings
within the DNL 65-75 dB noise contours should contain noise level reduction in accordance
with the Air Force land use compatibility guidelines in the AICUZ Study, Table 4.3.
Most industrial/manufacturing uses are compatible in the airfield area of influence.
Exceptions are uses such as research or scientific activities that require lower noise levels.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-9
Noise attenuation measures are recommended for portions of buildings devoted to office use,
receiving the public, or where the normal background noise level is low.
The transportation, communications, and utilities categories have a high noise level
compatibility because they generally are not people-intensive. When people use land for
these purposes, the use is generally very short in duration. Where buildings are required for
these uses, additional evaluation is warranted.
The commercial/retail trade and personal and business services categories are
compatible without restriction up to DNL 70 dB; however, they are generally incompatible
above DNL 80 dB. Between DNLs 70-79 dB, noise level reduction measures should be
included in the design and construction of buildings.
The nature of most uses in the public and quasi-public services category requires a
quieter environment, and attempts should be made to locate these uses below DNL 65 dB (an
Air Force land use recommendation), or else provide adequate noise level reduction.
Although recreational use has often been recommended as compatible with high noise
levels, recent research has resulted in a more conservative view. Above DNL 75 dB, noise
becomes a factor that limits the ability to enjoy such uses. Where the requirement to hear is a
function of the use (e.g., music shell, etc.), compatibility is limited. Buildings associated with
golf courses and similar uses should be noise attenuated.
With the exception of forestry activities and livestock farming, uses in the resources
production, extraction, and open space category are compatible almost without restrictions.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study A-10
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-1
Appendix B
CLEAR ZONES AND ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-3
CLEAR ZONES AND ACCIDENT POTENTIAL ZONES
B.1 Guidelines For Accident Potential
Areas around airports are exposed to the possibility of aircraft accidents even with well-maintained
aircraft and highly trained aircrews. Despite stringent maintenance requirements
and countless hours of training, history makes it clear that accidents do happen.
When the AICUZ Program began, there were no current comprehensive studies on
accident potential. To support the program, the Air Force completed a study of Air Force
aircraft accidents that occurred between 1968 and 1972 within 10 nautical miles of airfields.
The study of 369 accidents revealed that 75 percent of aircraft accidents occurred on or
adjacent to the runway (1,000 feet to each side of the runway centerline) and in a corridor
3,000 feet (1,500 feet either side of the runway centerline) wide, extending from the runway
threshold along the extended runway centerline for a distance of 15,000 feet. The Air Force
updated these studies and this information is presented later in this section.
The CZ, APZ I, and APZ II were established based on crash patterns. The CZ starts at
the end of the runway and extends outward 3,000 feet. It has the highest accident potential of
the three zones. The Air Force adopted a policy of acquiring property rights to areas
designated as CZs because of the high accident potential. APZ I extends from the CZ an
additional 5,000 feet. It includes an area of reduced accident potential. APZ II extends from
APZ I an additional 7,000 feet in an area of further reduced accident potential.
Research in accident potential conducted by the Air Force was the first significant effort
in this subject area since 1952 when the President’s Airport Commission published “The
Airport and Its Neighbors,” better known as the “Doolittle Report.” The recommendations of
this earlier report were influential in the formulation of the APZ concept.
The risk to people on the ground being killed or injured by aircraft accidents is small.
However, an aircraft accident is a high consequence event, and when a crash does occur, the
result is often catastrophic. Because of this, the Air Force does not attempt to base its safety
standards on accident probabilities. Instead, the Air Force approaches this safety issue from a
land use planning perspective.
B.2 Guidelines For Accident Potential
Military aircraft accidents differ from commercial air carrier and general aviation
accidents because of the variety of aircraft used, the type of missions, and the number of
training flights. In 1973, the Air Force performed a service-wide aircraft accident hazard
study to identify land near airfields with significant accident potential. Accidents studied
occurred within 10 nautical miles of airfields.
The study reviewed 369 major Air Force accidents during 1968-1972, and found that
61 percent of those accidents were related to landing operations, and 39 percent were takeoff
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-4
related. It also found that 70 percent occurred in daylight, and that fighter and training
aircraft accounted for 80 percent of the accidents.
Because the purpose of the study was to identify accident hazards, the study plotted
each of the 369 accidents in relation to the airfield. This plotting found that the accidents
clustered along the runway and its extended centerline. To further refine this clustering, a
tabulation was prepared that described the cumulative frequency of accidents as a function of
distance from the runway centerline along the extended centerline. This analysis was done for
widths of 2,000, 3,000, and 4,000 total feet. Table B.1 reflects the location analysis.
Table B.1 Location Analysis
Width of Runway
Extension (feet)
Length From Both Ends of Runway (feet) 2000 3000 4000
Percent of Accidents
On or Adjacent to Runway (1,000 feet to each side of runway centerline) 23 23 23
0 to 3,000 35 39 39
3,000 to 8,000 8 8 8
8,000 to 15,000 5 5 7
Cumulative Percent of Accidents
On or Adjacent to Runway (1,000 feet to each side of runway centerline) 23 23 23
0 to 3,000 58 62 62
3,000 to 8,000 66 70 70
8,000 to 15,000 71 75 77
Figure B.1 indicates that the cumulative number of accidents rises rapidly from the end
of the runway to 3,000 feet, rises more gradually to 8,000 feet, then continues at about the
same rate of increase to 15,000 feet, where it levels off rapidly. The location analysis also
indicates 3,000 feet as the optimum runway extension width and the width which includes the
maximum percentage of accidents in the smallest area.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-5
Figure B.1 Distribution of Air Force Aircraft Accidents
(369 Accidents - 1968 - 1972)
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
80
90
100
0 3000' 8000' 15000' 24000'
Runway Extension
Cumulative % of Accidents
2000' 3000' 4000'
Using the optimum runway extension width, 3,000 feet, and the cumulative distribution
of accidents from the end of the runway, zones were established that minimized the land area
included and maximized the percentage of accidents included. The zone dimensions and
accident statistics for the 1968-1972 study are shown in Figure B.2.
Figure B.2 Air Force Aircraft Accident Data
(369 Accidents - 1968 - 1972)
Runway
Clear Zone APZ 1 APZ II
3000’ 5000’ 7000’
84 Accidents
22.8%
144 Accidents
39.0%
29 Accidents
7.9%
18 Accidents
4.9%
Other Accidents within 10 Nautical Miles
94 Accidents -- 25.4%
3000’
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-6
The original study was updated to include accidents through September 1995. This
updated study includes 838 accidents during the 1968-1995 period. Using the optimum
runway extension width of 3,000 feet, the accident statistics of the updated study are shown in
Figure B.3.
Figure B.3 Air Force Aircraft Accident Data
(838 Accidents - 1968 - 1995)
Runway
Clear Zone APZ 1 APZ II
3000’ 5000’ 7000’
209 Accidents
24.9%
230 Accidents
27.4%
85 Accidents
10.1%
47 Accidents
5.6%
Other Accidents within 10 Nautical Miles
267 Accidents -- 31.9%
3000’
Using the designated zones and accident data, it is possible to calculate a ratio of
percentage of accidents to percentage of area size. These ratios indicate the CZ, with the
smallest area size and the highest number of accidents, has the highest ratio, followed by the
runway and adjacent area, APZ I, and then APZ II. Table B.2 reflects this data.
Table B.2 Accident to Area Ratio
Ratio of Percentage of Accidents to Percentage of Area
(Air Force Accident Data 1968 - 1995)
Area1
(Acres)
Number2
Accident
Accident Per
Acre
Percent of
Total Area
Percent
of Total
Accidents
Ratio:3
% Accidents to
% Area
Runway
Area
487 209 1 Per 2.3 acres 0.183 24.9 136
Clear Zone 413 230 1 Per 1.8 acres 0.155 27.4 177
APZ I 689 85 1 Per 8.1 acres 0.258 10.1 39
APZ II 964 47 1 Per 20.5 acres 0.362 5.6 16
Other Area 264,053 267 1 Per 989 acres 99.042 31.9 0.3
1 Area includes land within 10 nautical miles of runway.
2 Total number of accidents is 838 (through 1995).
3 Percent total accidents divided by percent total area.
Additional accident data for 1986 through July 1995 has been analyzed. Specific
location data for some of the 1986-1995 accidents was not available and these were not
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-7
included in the analysis. Table B.3 compares the 1968-1985 data with the data through July
1995:
Table B.3 Additional Accident Data
1968-1985 1968-1995
ZONE Accidents % of Total Accidents % of Total
On-Runway 197 27.1 209 24.9
Clear Zone 210 28.8 230 27.4
APZ I 57 7.8 85 10.1
APZ II 36 5.0 47 5.7
Other (Within 10 nautical miles) 228 31.3 267 31.9
Total 728 100.0 838 100.0
Analysis has shown that the cumulative changes evident in accident location through
July 1995 reconfirm the dimensions of the CZs and APZs.
B.3 Definable Debris Impact Areas
The Air Force also determined which accidents had definable debris impact areas, and
in what phase of flight the accident occurred. Overall, 75 percent of the accidents had
definable debris impact areas, although they varied in size by type of accident. The Air Force
used weighted averages of impact areas, for accidents occurring only in the approach and
departure phase, to determine the following average impact areas:
Average Impact Areas for Approach and Departure Accidents
Overall Average Impact Area 5.06 acres
Fighter, Trainer, and Misc. Aircraft 2.73 acres
Heavy Bomber and Tanker Aircraft 8.73 acres
B.4 Findings
Designation of safety zones around the airfield and restriction of incompatible land uses
can reduce the public's exposure to safety hazards.
Air Force accident studies have found that aircraft accidents near Air Force installations
occurred in the following patterns:
• 61% were related to landing operations.
• 39% were related to takeoff operations.
• 70% occurred in daylight.
• 80% were related to fighter and training aircraft operations.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study B-8
• 25% occurred on the runway or within an area extending 1,000 feet out from each
side of the runway.
• 27% occurred in an area extending from the end of the runway to 3,000 feet along
the extended centerline and 3,000 feet wide, centered on the extended centerline.
• 15% occurred in an area between 3,000 and 15,000 feet along the extended runway
centerline and 3,000 feet wide, centered on the extended centerline.
Air Force aircraft accident statistics found 75% of aircraft accidents resulted in
definable impact areas. The size of the impact areas were:
• 5.06 acres overall average.
• 2.73 acres for fighters and trainers.
• 8.73 acres for heavy bombers and tankers.
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study C-1
Appendix C
NOISE AND NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION GUIDELINES
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study C-2
THIS PAGE INTENTIONALLY LEFT BLANK
Tinker Air Force Base, Oklahoma
2006 AICUZ Study C-3
NOISE AND NOISE LEVEL REDUCTION GUIDELINES
C.1 General
Noise, often defined as unwanted sound, is one of the most common environmental
issues associated with aircraft operations. Of course, aircraft are not the only sources of noise
in an urban or suburban surrounding, where noise from interstate and local roadway traffic,
rail, industrial, and neighborhood sources also intrude on the everyday quality of life.
Nevertheless, aircraft are readily identifiable to those affected by their noise and are typically
singled out for special attention and criticism. Consequently, aircraft noise problems often
dominate analyses of environmental impacts.
Sound is a physical phenomenon consisting of minute vibrations that travel through a
medium such as air, and are sensed by the human ear. Whether that sound is interpreted as
pleasant (e.g., music) or unpleasant (e.g., aircraft noise) depends largely on t